Benchmark: slice vs splice vs concat -- mee

Script Preparation code:

const arr= [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]

Tests:

slice
const arr= [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] const result = [ ...arr.slice(0, 10), 99, ...arr.slice(10), ]
loop
const arr= [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] arr.splice(10, 0, 99);
concat
const arr= [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] arr.concat(arr.slice(0, 10), 99, arr.slice(10))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
loop
concat

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 provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three approaches to achieve similar results: using `arr.slice()` with an offset, using `arr.splice()`, and using `arr.concat()` with other arrays.

**Test Cases**

1. **`slice`**: This test case uses `arr.slice(0, 10)` to get the first 10 elements of the array, inserts a new value (99) in between, and then uses `arr.slice(10)` to get the rest of the elements.
2. **`loop`**: This test case directly modifies the original array using `arr.splice(10, 0, 99);`. It adds a new element at index 10 with the value 99.
3. **`concat`**: This test case uses `arr.concat()` to concatenate three arrays: the first 10 elements of the original array (`arr.slice(0, 10)`), the inserted value (99), and the rest of the original array starting from index 10 (`arr.slice(10)`).

**Approach Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

* **`slice`**: This method is efficient because it creates new arrays without modifying the original one. However, it can be slower if the resulting arrays are large.
* **`splice`**: Modifying the original array directly using `splice()` is generally faster than creating new arrays with `slice()`. However, it modifies the original array, which may not be desirable in some cases.
* **`concat`**: Using `concat()` creates a new array by copying elements from other arrays. It can be slower than both `slice()` and `splice()` because it involves more operations.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`slice`**:
	+ Pros: Creates new arrays without modifying the original one, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios.
	+ Cons: May be slower if the resulting arrays are large.
* **`splice`**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than creating new arrays with `slice()`.
	+ Cons: Modifies the original array, which may not be desirable.
* **`concat`**:
	+ Pros: Can be useful when you need to combine multiple arrays.
	+ Cons: Slower due to more operations.

**Library/Functionality Used**

In this benchmark, there are no specific libraries or functions used beyond JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.slice()` and `Array.prototype.splice()`. However, the use of `concat()` with other arrays implies that you should be aware of how array concatenation works in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. All tests use standard JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you needed to achieve similar results but wanted alternative approaches, some options could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.unshift()` to insert elements at a specific index.
* Using `Array.prototype.map()` to create new arrays with modified elements.
* Using other array methods, such as `Array.prototype.reduce()`, to manipulate the array.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach might have its own trade-offs in terms of performance and code readability.

Related benchmarks:

slice vs splice vs concat -- mee (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs loop vs concat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice

loop

concat

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):