arr = [Array(100000).keys()];
index = 999;
arr.splice(index,1);
arr2 = arr.slice();
arr2 = [arr.slice(0,index),arr.slice(index+1)];
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
splice slice | |
spread slice |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
splice slice | 1968.7 Ops/sec |
spread slice | 286.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and analyze what's being tested.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for removing an element from an array:
arr.splice(index, 1);
arr2 = [...arr.slice(0, index), ...arr.slice(index + 1)];
The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.
Approach 1: Using splice
splice
method modifies the original array by removing the element at the specified index (index
) and returns an array of the removed elements. In this case, it's only removing one element.Approach 2: Using slice
and Array Spread
index
). The second slice creates a new array containing all elements after the specified index (index + 1
). These two slices are then spread into a new array, effectively removing the element at the original index.Library Used
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the Array.prototype.slice()
method is used, which is a built-in method provided by JavaScript.
Special JS Feature/Syntax
The benchmark uses the spread operator (...
) in the second test case. The spread operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a way to create new arrays by copying elements from an existing array or other iterable. It's a convenient and efficient way to perform operations like concatenation, spreading, and destructuring.
Other Alternatives
If the benchmarkers wanted to explore alternative approaches, they could consider:
Array.prototype.fill()
and Array.prototype.forEach()
: Fill the array with a filler value (e.g., null
), then use forEach()
to remove elements at the specified index.Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the original approaches tested by MeasureThat.net.