Benchmark: first result slice vs filter

Script Preparation code:

var test=Array.from({length: 100},()=>Math.random())

Tests:

slice
test.slice(1)
filter
test.filter((_, i) => i !== 0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.93 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice	4541866.5 Ops/sec
filter	1092165.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object that contains the name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code for a test. In this case, the `Script Preparation Code` defines an array `test` with 100 random elements using `Array.from()` and `Math.random()`. This creates a large, shuffled array that will be used to test the performance of two different methods: `slice()` and `filter()`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared in this benchmark:

1. **`slice()`**: This method returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array, from the specified start index (inclusive) up to but not including the end index.
2. **`filter()`**: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **`slice()`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Generally faster than `filter()` because it doesn't require creating a new array.
        *   Can be more efficient for smaller arrays or when working with contiguous blocks of data.
    *   Cons:
        *   May not work correctly if the start index is greater than the end index, which can lead to unexpected results.
*   **`filter()`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More flexible and robust, as it doesn't require an exact start index or a contiguous block of data.
        *   Can be used with more complex conditions, such as checking if an element meets certain criteria.
    *   Cons:
        *   Generally slower than `slice()` because it requires creating a new array.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being tested. However, the `Array.from()` method is used to create an array from an iterable source (in this case, a generator expression). This is a modern JavaScript feature that allows for more concise and expressive way of creating arrays.

There are no special JavaScript features being used in this benchmark beyond what's already mentioned (e.g., arrow functions, generators).

**Other Alternatives**

If `slice()` or `filter()` aren't the best options for your specific use case, here are some alternative approaches:

*   **`forEach()`**: This method executes a provided function once for each element in an array.
*   **`map()`**: This method creates a new array with the results of applying a provided function to every element in an array.
*   **`reduce()`**: This method applies a provided function to each element in an array, reducing it to a single value.

Ultimately, the choice between `slice()`, `filter()`, or other alternatives will depend on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

first result slice vs filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs filter

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice

filter

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):