var array = [1,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3];
return array.at(-1);
return array[array.length - 1];
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
array.at(-1) | |
array[array.length - 1] |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
array.at(-1) | 4370092.5 Ops/sec |
array[array.length - 1] | 2273550.0 Ops/sec |
Overview of the Benchmark
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: array.at(-1)
and array[array.length - 1]
. This test measures how fast each approach can retrieve the last element of an array.
Options Compared
Two options are compared:
array.at(-1)
array[array.length - 1]
Both methods aim to access the last element of an array, but they differ in their implementation.
Pros and Cons of Each Approach
array.at(-1)
due to the need for array indexing.Library Used (if applicable)
None. Both approaches rely on standard JavaScript features.
Special JS Features or Syntax
No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark.
Other Considerations
When choosing between array.at(-1)
and array[array.length - 1]
, consider the following:
array[array.length - 1]
.array.at(-1)
.array.at(-1)
might not work with sparse arrays if they contain gaps.Alternatives
If you're interested in exploring other JavaScript microbenchmarks or comparing different array methods, consider the following alternatives:
map()
, filter()
, and reduce()
.Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.