Benchmark: copy speed - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var proto_slice = Array.prototype.slice;
var a = [1,2,3,4,5];

Tests:

slice
Array.prototype.slice.call(a)
switch
switch (a.length) { case 0: return []; case 1: return [a[0]]; case 2: return [a[0], a[1]]; case 3: return [a[0], a[1], a[2]]; case 4: return [a[0], a[1], a[2], a[3]]; case 5: return [a[0], a[1], a[2], a[3], a[4]]; default: return proto_slice.call(a); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
switch

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object with the following properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "copy speed".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that no description is provided.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that creates an array `a` containing the elements `[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]`. This code is executed before running each test case.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating that no HTML preparation code is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"slice"`**
The benchmark definition is `Array.prototype.slice.call(a)`. This code calls the `slice()` method on the `Array.prototype` and passes the array `a` as an argument. The `call()` method is used to invoke the `slice()` method with the specified context.

2. **"switch"`**
The benchmark definition is a custom implementation of a switch statement using a series of `case` statements:
```javascript
switch (a.length) {
  case 0: return [];
  case 1: return [a[0]];
  case 2: return [a[0], a[1]];
  case 3: return [a[0], a[1], a[2]];
  case 4: return [a[0], a[1], a[2], a[3]];
  case 5: return [a[0], a[1], a[2], a[3], a[4]];
  default: return Array.prototype.slice.call(a);
}
```
This implementation is likely intended to test the performance of the `slice()` method compared to a custom switch statement.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the following options:

* Using the built-in `Array.prototype.slice()` method (`call()`)
* Implementing a custom switch statement to create an array slice

**Pros and Cons**

**Using `Array.prototype.slice()`**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Less error-prone, as it follows the standard array method implementation

Cons:

* May have performance overhead due to method call overhead or other factors

**Custom Switch Statement**

Pros:

* Can potentially outperform the built-in `slice()` method for certain use cases (e.g., very small arrays)
* Allows for more control over the implementation

Cons:

* More verbose and error-prone code
* May have performance overhead due to the complexity of the switch statement

**Library Used**

In both test cases, the `Array.prototype.slice()` method is used. The `slice()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that creates a shallow copy of an array segment.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Device and Browser Variability**: The benchmark results are reported for multiple browsers, devices, and operating systems. This helps to ensure the benchmark's consistency across different environments.
* **Executions Per Second**: The "ExecutionsPerSecond" metric measures the number of executions performed per second. This provides insight into the performance characteristics of each test case.
* **Alternatives**

Other alternatives for this benchmark could include:

* Using a different array method, such as `Array.prototype.splice()` or `Array.prototype.slice()` with a custom offset and length
* Comparing the performance of different array data structures, such as arrays vs. linked lists
* Testing the performance of different programming paradigms, such as imperative vs. functional programming

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and implementation.

Related benchmarks:

copy speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs switch

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice

switch

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):