Benchmark: ob slice vs spread 2

Tests:

slice
const numArray = [ {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {} ] numArray.slice(1)
spread
const numArray = [ {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, {} ] const [,...newNumArray]= numArray;

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

slice

4.4M/s

spread

1.8M/s

Fastest: slice (2.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ slice: 4,426,298 ops/sec
• spread: 1,757,040 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

slice

4.6M/s

spread

1.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ slice	4,563,074 Ops/sec
spread	1,782,564 Ops/sec

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 explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition consists of a simple JavaScript code snippet that creates an array with 24 objects and then calls one of two methods: `numArray.slice(1)` or `[...newNumArray] = numArray;`. The latter method uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array from the original array.

**Options Compared**
Two options are compared:

1. **`slice()`**: The `slice()` method returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array.
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: The spread operator creates a new array by spreading the elements of an array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`slice()`**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, lightweight, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of creating a new object array.
* **Spread Operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: Faster, more modern, and concise.
	+ Cons: May have performance issues with very large arrays or when used in conjunction with other methods (e.g., `Array.from()`).

In general, for small to medium-sized arrays, the spread operator may be slightly faster due to its optimized implementation. However, for very large arrays, the `slice()` method might be more efficient.

**Library and Special JS Features**
There are no libraries or special JavaScript features used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Array Creation**: The benchmark creates a new array with 24 objects using the `const numArray = [...];` syntax. This is an optimized way to create arrays, as it avoids the overhead of creating multiple objects.
* **ES6 Features**: The spread operator and arrow functions (`=>`) are used in the second test case.

**Alternatives**

If you want to compare other methods for slicing or spreading arrays, here are some alternatives:

1. **`Array.prototype.slice()` with `apply()`**: You can use the `apply()` method to call `slice()` with an array of indices as arguments.
```javascript
numArray[1].apply(null, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]);
```
However, this approach is less efficient than using the spread operator.

2. **`Array.prototype.map()`**: You can use the `map()` method to create a new array by mapping over the original array.
```javascript
numArray.slice(1).map((_, i) => numArray[i]);
```
However, this approach creates a new array of objects with their own references, which may not be desirable.

3. **`for...of` loop**: You can use a `for...of` loop to iterate over the original array and create a new array.
```javascript
const newNumArray = [];
for (const value of numArray.slice(1)) {
  newNumArray.push(value);
}
```
However, this approach is less concise than using the spread operator.

In summary, the benchmark compares two efficient methods for slicing and spreading arrays: `slice()` and the spread operator. The results show that the spread operator may be slightly faster, but the difference is negligible for most use cases.

ob slice vs spread 2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `slice vs spread`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

slice

spread

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

ob slice vs spread 2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: slice vs spread

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

slice

spread

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `slice vs spread`