Benchmark: array[array.length - 1] vs array.at(-1) vs array[array.length + -1]

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1,2,3];

Tests:

array[array.length - 1]
var d = array[array.length - 1];
array.at(-1)
var z = array.at(-1);
array[array.length + -1]
var e = array[array.length + -1]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array[array.length - 1]
array.at(-1)
array[array.length + -1]

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

array[array.length + -1]

170.2M/s

array.at(-1)

160.2M/s

array[array.length - 1]

157.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ array[array.length + -1]	170,174,160 Ops/sec
array.at(-1)	160,245,456 Ops/sec
array[array.length - 1]	157,769,184 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test focuses on comparing three different ways to access the last element of an array:

1. `array[array.length - 1]`
2. `array.at(-1)`
3. `array[array.length + -1]`

These approaches are used to measure their performance and determine which one is the most efficient.

**Options comparison**

The three options being compared are:

* `array[array.length - 1]`: This method uses the `-` operator to subtract 1 from the array length, then uses array indexing (`[]`) to access the element at that index.
* `array.at(-1)`: This method uses the `at()` method introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10), which allows accessing an element at a specific index without bounds checking. The `-1` indicates the last element of the array.
* `array[array.length + -1]`: This method is similar to the first option, but with a twist: it adds `-1` to the array length instead of subtracting 1.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `array[array.length - 1]`:
	+ Pros: Wide compatibility (works in older browsers that don't support `at()`), easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Requires bounds checking, can be slower than other methods.
* `array.at(-1)`:
	+ Pros: Faster performance, more efficient memory usage, and better bounds checking compared to the first option.
	+ Cons: Requires modern browsers (ECMAScript 2019 or later) that support the `at()` method.
* `array[array.length + -1]`:
	+ Pros: Similar performance to `array[at(-1)]`, but with the added benefit of being more readable due to the simpler indexing pattern.
	+ Cons: Requires modern browsers that support JavaScript operators in array indices.

**Library and purpose**

None of the options rely on a specific library. However, note that some JavaScript engines may provide additional features or optimizations for arrays.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The `at()` method is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10). It allows accessing an element at a specific index without bounds checking, making it more efficient and convenient than traditional array indexing methods. The `-1` used with `at()` refers to the last element of the array.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative ways to access the last element of an array, here are some options:

* `array[-1]`: This method uses a negative index to access the first element from the end of the array. It's not as efficient as `at(-1)` but can be useful in certain scenarios.
* `slice().reverse()[0]`: This method creates a reversed copy of the array using `slice()` and then accesses the last element (`[0]`). While it works, it's less efficient than the other options due to the creation of an intermediate array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or requirements (e.g., browser support).

array[array.length - 1] vs array.at(-1) vs array[array.length + -1] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `array[array.length - 1] vs array.at(-1) vs array[array.length + -1]`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

array[array.length - 1]

array.at(-1)

array[array.length + -1]

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

array[array.length - 1] vs array.at(-1) vs array[array.length + -1] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array[array.length - 1] vs array.at(-1) vs array[array.length + -1]

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

array[array.length - 1]

array.at(-1)

array[array.length + -1]

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `array[array.length - 1] vs array.at(-1) vs array[array.length + -1]`