Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
array[2] vs array.at(2)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
array[2] vs array.at(2)
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = [1,2,3];
Tests:
array[2]
var d = array[2];
array.at(2)
var z = array.at(2);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
array[2]
array.at(2)
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/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=562887" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
array[2]
29390016.0 Ops/sec
array.at(2)
29816042.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing the performance difference between accessing the third element of an array using two different methods: `array[2]` and `array.at(2)`. The benchmark is designed to measure which method is faster in terms of executions per second. **Options compared** There are only two options being compared: 1. **`array[2]`**: This method uses the bracket notation to access the element at index 2 of the array. 2. **`array.at(2)`**: This method uses the `at()` method, which is a relatively new addition to the JavaScript language (introduced in ECMAScript 2019), to access the element at index 2 of the array. **Pros and Cons** **`array[2]`** Pros: * Wide browser support (has been around for a long time) * Simple and intuitive syntax Cons: * May not be as efficient as other methods, especially for large arrays * Does not provide any additional functionality beyond accessing an element at a specific index **`array.at(2)`** Pros: * More efficient than `array[2]`, especially for large arrays (because it avoids creating intermediate elements) * Provides a more modern and intentional syntax for accessing array elements Cons: * Limited browser support (requires ECMAScript 2019 or later) * May be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with the new method **Library usage** Neither of these methods uses any external libraries. They are built-in JavaScript methods. **Special JS feature or syntax** `array.at(2)` uses a relatively new feature in JavaScript called "template literals" (specifically, the `at()` method). This feature is not widely supported and may require explicit configuration to work. **Other considerations** * The benchmark measures executions per second, which suggests that the goal is to find the fastest way to access an element at index 2. * The use of a large array (`[1, 2, 3]`) implies that the benchmark is trying to simulate a scenario where performance is critical. **Other alternatives** If you're looking for alternative methods to access elements at specific indices in arrays, some other options include: * `array[2]` (the same method being compared) * `array[index]` (a more general syntax that works for any index) * `Math.abs(array.indexOf(element) - 2)` (a method that finds the index of the element and subtracts 2 to get the desired value) However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or expressive as the `at()` method in modern browsers.
Related benchmarks:
array[0] vs array.at(0)
array[1] vs array.at(1) 2
array[] vs array.at()
array[index] vs array.at(index)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?