Benchmark: asdfadsf - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

length
const newArr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]; var size = 6; var arr2 = []; for (var i = 0; i < size; i++){ arr2.push(i); } arr2.length = 0; arr2.push(...newArr);
splice
const newArr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]; var size = 6; var arr3 = []; for (var i = 0; i < size; i++){ arr3.push(i); } arr3.splice(0, arr3.length, newArr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
length
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/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
length	21378546.0 Ops/sec
splice	25159634.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for any developer, and MeasuringThat.net provides a great platform to do so.

Let's break down the provided benchmark data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Benchmark Definition` section defines the test scenario. It appears that there are two separate benchmarks defined:

1. The first one creates an array `newArr` with 6 elements, then pushes 6 numbers from 0 to 5 onto another empty array `arr2`. Finally, it sets the length of `arr2` to 0 and pushes the contents of `newArr` back into `arr2`.
2. The second one creates an array `newArr` with 6 elements, then pushes 6 numbers from 0 to 5 onto another empty array `arr3`. Finally, it splices the first element off `arr3` and replaces it with the contents of `newArr`.

**Options Compared**

The two benchmarks compare the performance of pushing elements into an array versus using the `splice()` method to replace the first element.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Pushing**: This approach is generally faster and more efficient, as it modifies the original array in-place, without creating a new one. However, it may not be suitable when working with large datasets or arrays that need to be sorted.
2. **Splice()**: This approach creates a new array by copying the elements from the original array, then replaces the first element with the new content. While this can be useful in certain scenarios, it's generally slower and more memory-intensive due to the creation of a temporary array.

**Library**

In both benchmarks, an empty array `[]` is used, which is a basic JavaScript data structure. There are no external libraries or dependencies involved.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the provided benchmarks rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, generators, or Promises.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, here are a few options:

* Using `Array.prototype.concat()`: This method combines two arrays into one and returns the result. You can compare its performance with pushing elements into an array.
* Using `Array.prototype.slice()`: This method creates a shallow copy of an array and returns it. You can compare its performance with using the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or memory usage, which could affect the benchmark's accuracy.

In summary, MeasuringThat.net provides a straightforward way to compare the performance of two common JavaScript array operations: pushing elements into an array and using `splice()`. The results show that pushing is generally faster and more efficient.

Related benchmarks:

asdfadsf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: length vs splice

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

length

splice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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