Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
bench1
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new vs old
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
new
const sequence = [1, 2, 3]; sequence.toReversed(); // => [3, 2, 1] sequence;
old
const sequence = [1, 2, 3]; sequence.reverse(); // => [3, 2, 1] sequence;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new
old
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):
I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand. **What is tested on the provided JSON?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case. It consists of two individual test cases, "new" and "old", which test the performance of reversing an array in two different ways: using the `toReversed()` method and the `reverse()` method, respectively. **Options compared** There are two approaches to reversing an array: 1. **`toReversed()`**: This method is not a standard JavaScript method. It's likely a custom implementation that reverses the array by creating a new reversed copy of the original array. 2. **`reverse()`**: This is a standard JavaScript method that reverses the elements of an array in-place, modifying the original array. **Pros and Cons** * `toReversed()`: Pros: + May be faster than `reverse()` for very large arrays, since it creates a new reversed copy. + Can be useful when you need to preserve the original array. * Cons: + Creates a new reversed copy of the array, which can lead to increased memory usage and potentially slower performance due to object creation. + May not work as expected if the array is very large or has many elements. * `reverse()`: Pros: + Modifies the original array in-place, reducing memory allocation overhead. + Typically faster than creating a new reversed copy. * Cons: + Reverses the array in-place, modifying the original array. + May not be suitable for use cases where preserving the original array is necessary. **Library and purpose** There is no library used in this benchmark test case. However, it's worth noting that `toReversed()` might be a custom implementation using a library like Lodash or Ramda. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark test case. **Other considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors: * Memory usage: If memory allocation is critical, `reverse()` might be a better choice. * Performance: For very large arrays, `toReversed()` might be faster due to reduced object creation overhead. * Array preservation: If preserving the original array is necessary, `toReversed()` is a better option. **Other alternatives** Some other approaches for reversing an array in JavaScript include: 1. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provides optimized and reliable reversal methods. 2. Using a custom implementation that iterates over the array elements and swaps them with their corresponding reversed indices. 3. Using bitwise operations to reverse the array without creating a new copy. Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and memory usage compared to `reverse()` and `toReversed()`.
Related benchmarks:
forIn vs forOfEntries
Kolbey's test
TestOne
testtest9897
Compare lodash.get with native code
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?