Benchmark: Splice vs Slice batches

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Slice
for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i += 10) { const batch = list.slice(i, i + 10); }
Splice
while (list.length > 0) { const batch = list.splice(0, 10); }

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 the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for dividing an array of 100,000 elements into batches of 10 elements each: using the `slice` method or the `splice` method. The test aims to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Slice**: This option uses the `slice` method to create a shallow copy of a portion of an array. Specifically, it iterates over the original array from index 0 with a step of 10, creating a batch of 10 elements using the `slice` method.
2. **Splice**: This option uses the `splice` method to remove and return elements from an array. It iterates over the original array from index 0, removing and returning the first 10 elements using the `splice` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Slice**:
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a new array with the desired subset of elements, avoiding any modifications to the original array.
		+ Can be faster since it doesn't modify the original array.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new array object, which can lead to increased memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
2. **Splice**:
	* Pros:
		+ Modifies the original array in place, potentially reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ Removes elements from the original array, which may be undesirable if the array is used elsewhere.
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of modifying the original array.

**Library Used**

Neither `slice` nor `splice` are built-in JavaScript libraries; they are both native methods provided by the JavaScript language. However, some implementations of these methods might rely on underlying library functions.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require explanation outside of the standard array methods mentioned earlier.

**Other Alternatives**

In general, when dividing an array into batches, other alternatives to `slice` and `splice` could be considered:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach**: This method iterates over an array, but it doesn't create a new batch or return a subset of elements.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce**: This method can be used to create a new array with the desired subset of elements by reducing the original array into chunks.

However, `slice` and `splice` are typically preferred for this use case due to their simplicity and performance.

For reference, here is an example of how you might modify the benchmark code to use `forEach` or `reduce`:

**Using forEach**
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i += 10) {
  const batch = [];
  for (const element of list.slice(i, i + 10)) {
    batch.push(element);
  }
}
```

**Using reduce**
```javascript
const batch = list.reduce((acc, element, index) => {
  if (index % 10 === 0) {
    acc.push(element);
  }
  return acc;
}, []);
```
Keep in mind that `forEach` and `reduce` might not be as efficient or concise as using the native `slice` and `splice` methods.

Related benchmarks:

Splice vs Slice batches (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):