Benchmark: toSpliced vs splice vs with

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [2, 5, 19, 424, 5435, 1231, 123, 453, 5675, 345, 76345, 657, 32432, 45646];
var newArr = null;

Tests:

toSpliced insert
newArr = arr.toSpliced(5, 0, 675);
splice insert
const o = arr.slice(); newArr = o.splice(5, 0, 675)
with
newArr = arr.with(5, 675)
toSpliced
newArr = arr.toSpliced(0, 1);
splice
const o = arr.slice(); newArr = o.splice(0, 1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toSpliced insert
splice insert
with
toSpliced
splice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toSpliced insert	5483597.5 Ops/sec
splice insert	4278068.0 Ops/sec
with	6245117.5 Ops/sec
toSpliced	6170158.0 Ops/sec
splice	5002325.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different methods for inserting an element into an array:

1. `toSpliced`
2. `splice` (using the `slice` method)
3. `with`

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are the insertion methods, which affect how the array is modified and potentially lead to differences in performance.

**Pros/Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`toSpliced`**
	* Pros: This method modifies the original array by incrementally setting elements to `undefined`, effectively "removing" the unwanted element. This approach may be more efficient for large arrays.
	* Cons: It can lead to slower performance when dealing with small arrays or arrays that contain many duplicate elements, as it requires multiple operations to set all elements to `undefined`.
2. **`splice`**
	* Pros: This method modifies the original array by shifting and copying elements around. It's a standard JavaScript method that's widely supported.
	* Cons: For large arrays, this approach can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of repeated shifts and copies.
3. **`with`**
	* Note: There is no built-in `with` method in JavaScript that directly inserts an element into an array. It's possible that this benchmark uses a custom implementation or mislabeled it as "with". If you're familiar with the context, please provide more information about the purpose of this "with" method.

**Library/Custom Implementation**

The test case uses the `toSpliced` and `splice` methods, which are built-in JavaScript functions. The `with` method is not a standard JavaScript function; it's likely a custom implementation or mislabeled.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require specific knowledge to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

To insert an element into an array, you can also use the following methods:

* `Array.prototype.push()`: Adds one or more elements to the end of the array.
* `Array.prototype.unshift()`: Adds one or more elements to the beginning of the array.
* `Array.prototype.concat()`: Creates a new array by concatenating two or more arrays.
* Using `Array.prototype.slice()` and then modifying the resulting array (not used in this benchmark).

Keep in mind that performance optimizations may vary depending on the specific use case, array size, and JavaScript engine being used.

Related benchmarks:

toSpliced vs splice vs with (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toSpliced insert vs splice insert vs with vs toSpliced vs splice

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

toSpliced insert

splice insert

with

toSpliced

splice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):