Benchmark: test bmad - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var list = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000 * 1000; i++) {
  list.push(i);
}

Tests:

slice
let bar = [] for(let i = 0 ; i < list.length; i ++){ if(list[i] > 100){ bar = list.splice(i+1,list.length) break } }
splice
let bar = [] for(let i = 0 ; i < list.length; i ++){ if(list[i] > 100){ bar = list.slice(i+1,list.length) break } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
splice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The test case is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: `splice()` and `slice()`. Both methods are used to extract a subset of elements from an array.

**splice()**

* The code uses `splice()` with three arguments: the index to start extracting from (`i+1`), the number of elements to extract (`list.length`), and a boolean value indicating whether to shift the remaining elements in the original array (in this case, `true`, which means the remaining elements are shifted after extraction).
* The code checks if the current element (`list[i]`) is greater than 100. If it is, it breaks out of the loop.

**slice()**

* The code uses `slice()` with two arguments: the start index and the length to extract.
* The code does essentially the same thing as the `splice()` approach: checks if the current element is greater than 100 and breaks out of the loop if so. However, unlike `splice()`, `slice()` returns a new array without modifying the original array.

**Options Comparison**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

* **Splice():**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster for large arrays since it modifies the original array.
		- Avoids creating an additional array.
	+ Cons:
		- Changes the original array, which might not be desirable in some cases.
		- Shifts the remaining elements after extraction, which can affect performance if the array is very large.
* **Slice():**
	+ Pros:
		- Does not modify the original array, preserving its integrity.
		- Creates a new array with the extracted subset of elements.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires creating an additional array, which can be memory-intensive for large arrays.
		- Might be slower than `splice()` for very large arrays.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures the execution time per second (`ExecutionsPerSecond`) to compare the performance of the two approaches.
* The test uses a list of 1 million elements, which is a relatively small array size. For larger arrays, the performance difference between `splice()` and `slice()` might be less pronounced.

**Library**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that both `splice()` and `slice()` are native JavaScript methods that do not rely on any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard for JavaScript arrays.

Now, if you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few more approaches:

* **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This method can be used to extract a subset of elements from an array by reducing it to a single value that represents the extracted subset.
* **For...of loop**: Instead of using `for` loops with indices, you could use a `for...of` loop to iterate over the array and extract the desired subset of elements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to `splice()` and `slice()`.

Related benchmarks:

test bmad (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs splice

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice

splice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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