Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Spred vs Slice
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Spread vs Slice
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
Spread
const array = [...Array(1000).keys()]; const result = [...array];
Slice
const array = [...Array(1000).keys()]; const result = array.slice();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Spread
Slice
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 133 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=586470" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Slice
7K/s
Spread
7K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Slice
7,268 Ops/sec
Spread
7,072 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **What is being tested?** The test case compares two ways of creating a copy of an array in JavaScript: using the spread operator (`...`) and the `slice()` method. **Options compared:** 1. **Spread Operator (```...)**: This operator creates a new array by spreading the elements of an existing array or iterable. 2. **Slice Method (`array.slice()`)**: The `slice()` method returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array, starting from the index you specify. **Pros and Cons:** 1. **Spread Operator (```...)**: * Pros: concise, easy to read, and flexible (can be used with arrays, objects, sets, etc.). * Cons: may incur a higher overhead due to its syntactic sugar, which can lead to slightly slower performance. 2. **Slice Method (`array.slice()`)**: * Pros: well-established, widely supported, and often considered the "traditional" way of creating an array copy. * Cons: less concise than the spread operator, and its syntax may be less readable for some developers. **Other Considerations:** Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The choice between them ultimately depends on personal preference, code readability, and performance considerations. If you need to create a deep copy of an array (i.e., recursively copying nested arrays or objects), the spread operator might not be suitable due to its shallow copying nature. **Library Usage:** None of the provided test cases uses any external libraries. The only library-like functionality is the `Array` object itself, which provides various methods for manipulating and accessing array elements. **Special JS Feature/Syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing two fundamental ways of creating an array copy. **Benchmark Result Analysis:** The provided benchmark result shows that the `slice()` method outperforms the spread operator in this specific scenario, with Chrome 112 executing the `slice()` method approximately 78 executions per second faster than the spread operator. However, it's essential to note that this result may vary depending on the specific JavaScript engine, browser version, and platform used. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives for creating array copies include: 1. **Array.prototype.map()**: While not a traditional way of creating an array copy, `map()` can be used with an identity function (e.g., `(x) => x`) to create a shallow copy of an array. 2. **For...of loop**: A manual loop using a `for...of` loop and the `push()` method or the spread operator (`...`) to create an array copy. Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, readability, and maintainability trade-offs compared to the slice() method or spread operator.
Related benchmarks
Slice vs Splice delete
Slice vs Splice delete 1000
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?