Benchmark: array[2] vs array.at(2)

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1,2,3];

Tests:

array[2]
var d = array[2];
array.at(2)
var z = array.at(2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array[2]
array.at(2)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 3 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance difference between accessing the third element of an array using two different methods: `array[2]` and `array.at(2)`. The benchmark is designed to measure which method is faster in terms of executions per second.

**Options compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`array[2]`**: This method uses the bracket notation to access the element at index 2 of the array.
2. **`array.at(2)`**: This method uses the `at()` method, which is a relatively new addition to the JavaScript language (introduced in ECMAScript 2019), to access the element at index 2 of the array.

**Pros and Cons**

**`array[2]`**

Pros:

* Wide browser support (has been around for a long time)
* Simple and intuitive syntax

Cons:

* May not be as efficient as other methods, especially for large arrays
* Does not provide any additional functionality beyond accessing an element at a specific index

**`array.at(2)`**

Pros:

* More efficient than `array[2]`, especially for large arrays (because it avoids creating intermediate elements)
* Provides a more modern and intentional syntax for accessing array elements

Cons:

* Limited browser support (requires ECMAScript 2019 or later)
* May be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with the new method

**Library usage**

Neither of these methods uses any external libraries. They are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

`array.at(2)` uses a relatively new feature in JavaScript called "template literals" (specifically, the `at()` method). This feature is not widely supported and may require explicit configuration to work.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark measures executions per second, which suggests that the goal is to find the fastest way to access an element at index 2.
* The use of a large array (`[1, 2, 3]`) implies that the benchmark is trying to simulate a scenario where performance is critical.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to access elements at specific indices in arrays, some other options include:

* `array[2]` (the same method being compared)
* `array[index]` (a more general syntax that works for any index)
* `Math.abs(array.indexOf(element) - 2)` (a method that finds the index of the element and subtracts 2 to get the desired value)

However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or expressive as the `at()` method in modern browsers.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array[2]	5252529.0 Ops/sec
array.at(2)	5233151.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array[2] vs array.at(2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array[2] vs array.at(2)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array[2]

array.at(2)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 3 days ago):