Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array.from or slice
(version: 0)
Array.from() or slice()
Comparing performance of:
Array.from vs slice
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Array.from
Array.from([{a:1}, {a:2},{a:3}])
slice
[{a:1}, {a:2},{a:3}].slice()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of two methods: `Array.from()` and `slice()`. Both methods are used to create a new array from an existing iterable (in this case, an array with objects). **Options Compared** There are two main options being compared: 1. **`Array.from()`**: This method creates a new array by iterating over the elements of an existing array-like object (such as an array with objects). 2. **`slice()`**: This method creates a shallow copy of a portion of an array, returning a new array object. **Pros and Cons** * **`Array.from()`**: + Pros: Efficient for creating arrays from iterables, works well with modern browsers and JavaScript engines. + Cons: Can be slower than `slice()` in certain cases (e.g., when dealing with very large datasets), requires iteration over the iterable, can be less cache-friendly. * **`slice()`**: + Pros: Fast, efficient for creating arrays from existing arrays, allows for caching and faster execution due to being a simple array copy operation. + Cons: Only creates a shallow copy of the original array, may not work well with non-array-like objects or very large datasets. **Other Considerations** * **Iteration**: Both methods require iterating over the elements of the iterable. However, `Array.from()` can be more efficient in some cases due to its ability to take advantage of modern JavaScript engine optimizations. * **Cache-friendliness**: `slice()` is generally considered cache-friendly because it creates a shallow copy of the original array, which allows for faster execution and better caching behavior. **Library/Functionality Used** None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, both methods rely on built-in JavaScript functionality: `Array.from()` uses the `Array.prototype.from()` method, and `slice()` is a standard array method (`Array.prototype.slice()`). **Special JS Feature/Syntax (Not Applicable)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks. **Alternatives** If you wanted to test similar methods, some alternatives could be: * **`map()`**: While not identical, `map()` can also create new arrays from iterables. However, it would require additional processing and may not provide the same cache-friendliness as `slice()`. * **Other array methods** (e.g., `reduce()`, `forEach()`, etc.): These methods could be used to compare their performance with `Array.from()` and `slice()`. * **Native WebAssembly or native code**: For extremely high-performance benchmarking, using native WebAssembly or compiled JavaScript code might provide even better results. Keep in mind that the specific alternatives would depend on your use case and performance requirements.
Related benchmarks:
`Array.slice(-1)[0]` vs `Array[Array.length]`
Slice vs splice first three elements
Array.prototype.slice vs Array.from()
`array.slice(-1)[0]` vs `array[array.length - 1]`
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?