Benchmark: New Variable of Result of Mutating Method vs. Same Variable

Script Preparation code:

var array = ["he", "ll", "o", " w", "or", "ld", "!"];

Tests:

Control Case (not creating a new variable)
array.reverse();
Save Result in New Variable
const reverse = array.reverse();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Control Case (not creating a new variable)
Save Result in New Variable

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Control Case (not creating a new variable)	10343298.0 Ops/sec
Save Result in New Variable	10113144.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two different approaches:

1. **"Control Case (not creating a new variable)"**: This approach tests the efficiency of reversing an array without storing the result in a new variable.
2. **"Save Result in New Variable"**: This approach tests the efficiency of reversing an array and storing the result in a new constant variable.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing the performance difference between these two approaches:

* How much time does it take to reverse an array without creating a new variable?
* How much time does it take to reverse an array and store the result in a new variable?

**Options compared**

In this case, there are only two options being compared:

1. **"Control Case (not creating a new variable)"**: This approach is likely to be the most efficient way to reverse an array, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new variable.
2. **"Save Result in New Variable"**: This approach creates a new variable `reverse` and assigns the result of `array.reverse()` to it. This introduces additional overhead due to variable creation and assignment.

**Pros and Cons**

* **"Control Case (not creating a new variable)"**
	+ Pros:
		- Less overhead due to variable creation
		- May be faster in terms of execution time
	+ Cons:
		- More memory-intensive, as the original array is not modified
* **"Save Result in New Variable"**
	+ Pros:
		- Allows for more flexibility and reusability of the reversed array
	+ Cons:
		- Introduces additional overhead due to variable creation and assignment

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `Array.prototype.reverse()` method is being used, which is a built-in method of the Array prototype.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned, but it's worth noting that the use of `const` to declare variables may be relevant to some JavaScript versions or implementations. However, the specific behavior of `const` in this context is not being tested.

**Other alternatives**

In general, there may be other approaches to reversing an array that could be tested, such as:

* Using a custom implementation without modifying the original array
* Using a different data structure, like a linked list or a stack, to reverse the array
* Using parallel processing or concurrency to improve performance

However, these alternatives are not explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

Related benchmarks:

New Variable of Result of Mutating Method vs. Same Variable (version: 0)

Tests how inefficient it is to save the result of a mutating method (that already changes the value passed to it) in a new variable.

Comparing performance of: Control Case (not creating a new variable) vs Save Result in New Variable

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Control Case (not creating a new variable)

Save Result in New Variable

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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