Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
arr.at(-1) vs arr[arr.length-1]
(version: 0)
Test access speed
Comparing performance of:
Test length vs Test at
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });
Tests:
Test length
data[data.length - 1]
Test at
data.at(-1)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Test length
Test at
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
4 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 143 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
Test length
212702448.0 Ops/sec
Test at
190131504.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The primary test case measures the access speed of two different ways to access the last element of an array: 1. `arr.at(-1)` 2. `arr[arr.length-1]` These two approaches are used to compare their performance, with the goal of determining which one is faster and more efficient. **Options Compared** We have two main options being compared: 1. **`at()` method**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES9), this method provides a safer way to access array elements by their index, without throwing an error if the index is out of bounds. 2. **Subscript notation (`[]`) with `length` property**: This is the traditional way of accessing array elements using their index. **Pros and Cons** ### `at()` Method Pros: * Provides a safer way to access array elements by their index, without throwing an error if the index is out of bounds. * Can be more efficient than the subscript notation for large arrays, as it avoids the overhead of checking the length property. Cons: * Requires ECMAScript 2019 (ES9) support, which might not be available in older browsers or environments. * May have a performance overhead compared to the subscript notation for small arrays. ### Subscript Notation (`[]`) with `length` Property Pros: * Widely supported across different browsers and environments, including older ones. * Can be faster than the `at()` method for small arrays. Cons: * Can throw an error if the index is out of bounds. * May have a performance overhead compared to the `at()` method for large arrays. **Library** There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. The tests only rely on built-in JavaScript features. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The `at()` method is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES9), which allows safe array indexing without throwing an error if the index is out of bounds. This syntax was not available in earlier versions of JavaScript. **Other Considerations** When evaluating these two approaches, it's essential to consider the size and complexity of the arrays being accessed, as well as the specific requirements of your application. For small arrays or simple use cases, the subscript notation might be sufficient and faster. However, for large arrays or performance-critical code paths, the `at()` method can provide a safer and potentially more efficient alternative. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to access the last element of an array include: 1. Using the `pop()` method: This removes the last element from the array and returns it. 2. Creating a new array with the last element using the spread operator (`[...]`): This creates a new array containing only the last element. These alternatives may have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to the `at()` method and subscript notation.
Related benchmarks:
`Array.slice(-1)[0]` vs `Array[Array.length]`
`Array.slice(-1)[0]` vs `Array[Array.length]` for 10000 length
arr.slice(-1)[0] vs arr[arr.length - 1]
arr.at(-1) vs arr[arr.length - 1]
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?