Benchmark: Shift vs [0] - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];

for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++){array.push(Math.random());}

Tests:

Shift
const i = array.shift();
[0]
const i = array[0];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Shift
[0]

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; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Shift	31825286.0 Ops/sec
[0]	30320380.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested on this specific benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each measuring the performance of accessing an element in an array using different approaches: `array.shift()` ( Shift ) and `array[0]` ( [0] ). The test case uses a predefined script preparation code to create an array of 100,000 random elements.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Shift**: This approach involves calling the `shift()` method on the array, which removes and returns the first element from the array.
2. **[0]**: This approach directly accesses the first element of the array using square bracket notation (`array[0]`).

**Pros and Cons**

**Shift (array.shift())**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient than accessing an index at runtime, as it allows the JavaScript engine to optimize the lookup.
* May have better cache locality due to its sequential nature.

Cons:

* Removes the element from the array, which can affect subsequent accesses or operations on the same array.
* May not be as predictable as directly accessing an index, especially if the array is large.

**[0] (array[0])**

Pros:

* Directly accesses a specific element in the array, without modifying it.
* Predictable and consistent results, regardless of the size of the array.

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the overhead of accessing an index at runtime.
* May not take advantage of cache locality as well as `shift()` does.

**Other considerations**

* The use of `Math.random()` in the script preparation code introduces some randomness and variability in the benchmark results, which can affect the accuracy of the comparisons.
* The test case assumes that the JavaScript engine will optimize the access to the array's first element when using `array[0]`, but this is not always the case.

**Library and special JS feature**

There are no specific libraries used in this benchmark. However, it does demonstrate a common use of JavaScript features such as:

* Array methods (e.g., `shift()`)
* Indexing syntax (`array[0]`)
* Direct element access

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing an element in an array include:

1. `array[0]`: As mentioned earlier, directly accesses the first element using square bracket notation.
2. `Array.prototype.at()` (ECMAScript 2019+): A new method for accessing elements at a specific position in an array.
3. Indexing syntax with `in` operator (`array["index"]` or `array[Symbol.iterator]().next().value`)

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements.

In summary, this benchmark measures the performance difference between accessing an element in an array using two different approaches: `array.shift()` (Shift) and `array[0]` ([0]). The test case uses a predefined script preparation code to create an array of 100,000 random elements.

Related benchmarks:

Shift vs [0] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Shift vs [0]

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Shift

[0]

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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