Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
access vs store
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
store and access vs access
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
arr = Array.from(Array(10000).keys())
Tests:
store and access
const arratone = arr.at(-1) arratone
access
arr.at(-1) arr.at(-1)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
store and access
access
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 JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases: 1. "store and access" 2. "access" These test cases measure the performance difference between storing a value in an array (`arratone`) and accessing it directly using the `at` method. **Options compared** In this benchmark, only two options are being compared: a. Storing a value in an array: `const arratone = arr.at(-1)` b. Accessing an element directly using the `at` method: `arr.at(-1)` **Pros and Cons** ### Storing a value Pros: * Can be more efficient if you need to store a value for later use * Allows for more flexibility in your code, as you can reuse the stored value Cons: * Requires additional memory allocation * May incur overhead due to array operations (e.g., resizing) ### Accessing an element directly Pros: * Faster access to elements, as it bypasses array operations * Reduces memory usage, as no additional storage is required Cons: * Only accessible when the index exists; otherwise, throws an error * May not be suitable for use cases where you need to store a value for later use **Library and purpose** The `at` method is part of the ECMAScript standard (ES6+). Its primary purpose is to provide safe and efficient access to array elements by their index. In this benchmark, the `at` method is used to demonstrate its performance benefits when accessed directly, without storing a value for later use. **Special JS feature or syntax** This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it relies on the ES6+ standard (`const`, `let`, `Array.from`, etc.) and modern browser support for the `at` method. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following: 1. **Using a different data structure**: Instead of arrays, you could use other data structures like linked lists or trees to store values. 2. **Implementing your own array operations**: You could write custom implementations for array operations (e.g., `at`, `push`, `pop`) to compare their performance with the built-in methods. 3. **Using a different language or library**: If you're interested in exploring alternatives, consider using languages like Rust, Go, or libraries like NumJS or FastArray. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to this benchmark, as they may introduce additional overhead or require significant changes to your codebase.
Related benchmarks:
`Array.slice(-1)[0]` vs `Array[Array.length]`
`Array.slice(-1)[0]` vs `Array[Array.length]` for 10000 length
JS Array Slice vs Array Spread
slice vs length-1
Test slice vs array.length accessing last element
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?