Benchmark: js array copy speed comparison...

Tests:

map
const arr = [1,2,3,4,5] const newArr = arr.map(e=>e)
array.from
const arr = [1,2,3,4,5] const newArr = Array.from(arr)
...
const arr = [1,2,3,4,5] let newArr = [...arr];
slice
const arr = [1,2,3,4,5] const newArr = arr.slice()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
array.from
...
slice

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of different ways to create a new array from an existing one in JavaScript. The tests are:

1. `map`: using the `Array.prototype.map()` method
2. `array.from`: using the `Array.from()` constructor
3. ... (unknown syntax, as it's not specified)
4. `slice`: using the `Array.prototype.slice()` method

**Options being compared:**

The benchmark compares four different approaches to create a new array from an existing one:

1. **`map()`**: This method returns a new array with the results of applying a provided function to each element in the original array.
2. **`array.from()`**: This constructor creates a new array from an iterable object, such as an array or a string.
3. ... (unknown syntax): This syntax is not specified, so we'll come back to it later.
4. `slice()`: This method returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`map()`**: Pros:
	* Can be used to transform the elements of an array in various ways.
	* Can be memoized or cached for performance optimization.
Cons:
	* Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive for large arrays.
	* May incur additional overhead due to function calls and iteration.
2. **`array.from()`**: Pros:
	* Fast and efficient way to create an array from an iterable object.
	* Can be used with various types of iterables (e.g., strings, numbers).
Cons:
	* May not work well for large arrays or complex iterables.
	* Can be slower than `map()` due to the additional overhead of creating an iterator.
3. ... (unknown syntax): Unfortunately, this syntax is not specified in the benchmark definition. Without more information, it's difficult to provide any meaningful analysis.
4. **`slice()`**: Pros:
	* Fast and efficient way to create a shallow copy of a portion of an array.
Cons:
	* Only works for arrays with contiguous elements.
	* May not work well for large or sparse arrays.

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, `Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.slice()` are built-in methods that rely on the underlying JavaScript engine to execute.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There is no explicit mention of special JS features or syntax in the benchmark definition. If there were any notable mentions, I would highlight them here.

**Other alternatives:**

In addition to the four approaches mentioned above, there are other ways to create a new array from an existing one:

1. **`reduce()`**: A method that reduces an array to a single value.
2. **`forEach()`**: A method that calls a provided function for each element in an array.
3. **`Array.prototype.concat()`**: A method that concatenates two or more arrays into a new array.

These alternatives may offer different performance characteristics, memory usage, or convenience depending on the specific use case.

Without more information about the unknown syntax, it's challenging to provide further analysis. If you have any additional context or clarification regarding this syntax, I'd be happy to help!

Related benchmarks:

js array copy speed comparison... (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs array.from vs ... vs slice

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

array.from

...

slice

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):