Benchmark: testando 123 teste

Script Preparation code:

const array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13];

Tests:

array[array.length - 1];
const array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]; array[array.length - 1];
array.slice(-1);
const array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]; array.slice(-1);
array.at(-1);
const array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]; array.at(-1);
array.pop()
const array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]; array.pop();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array[array.length - 1];
array.slice(-1);
array.at(-1);
array.pop()

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test suite that measures the performance of different ways to access elements at the end of an array in JavaScript.

The three specific methods being compared are:

1. `array[array.length - 1]`: This method uses square bracket notation to access the last element of the array.
2. `array.slice(-1)`: This method uses the `slice()` method with a negative offset to extract the last element of the array.
3. `array.at(-1)`: This method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019 and uses the `at()` method with a negative index to access the last element of the array.

**Options compared**

The three options are compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured in executions per second (EPS).

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`array[array.length - 1]`**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for small arrays.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient for large arrays due to the need to compute `array.length`.
2. **`array.slice(-1)`**:
	* Pros: More efficient than `array[array.length - 1]` for large arrays since it avoids computing `array.length`.
	* Cons: Requires an extra method call, which can be slower.
3. **`array.at(-1)`**:
	* Pros: Efficient and concise, with better performance than `slice()` for small arrays.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used beyond the built-in JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The `at()` method is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019. It provides a more efficient and concise way to access elements at specific indices, including negative indices like `-1`.

**Other considerations**

When writing microbenchmarks, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Code size**: Smaller code snippets are generally faster since there's less overhead due to method calls, loops, etc.
* **Array size**: Larger arrays can lead to slower performance due to increased computations.
* **Browser support**: Make sure your benchmark is compatible with the target browsers or environments.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to measure JavaScript performance, consider:

1. **Benchmarking libraries like Benchmark.js** or **microbenchmark**: These libraries provide a simple and efficient way to write microbenchmarks.
2. **Chromium's `v8` benchmark suite**: This is a comprehensive set of benchmarks for measuring the performance of different JavaScript engines.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative benchmarking library or approach will depend on your specific use case, target audience, and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

testando 123 teste (version: 0)

const array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13];

Comparing performance of: array[array.length - 1]; vs array.slice(-1); vs array.at(-1); vs array.pop()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array[array.length - 1];

array.slice(-1);

array.at(-1);

array.pop()

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):