Benchmark: slice vs filter m

Script Preparation code:

var test=Array.from({length: 1000},(i, k)=> k)

Tests:

slice
test.slice(0, test.findIndex((v) => v === 50))
filter
test.filter((e,i)=>i!=50)

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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice	8082535.0 Ops/sec
filter	382957.6 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 MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `slice` and `filter`. Both tests are designed to measure the performance difference between using the `slice()` method versus the `filter()` method on an array.

**Options compared**

In this case, we have two options:

1. **Slice**: The `slice()` method creates a new array containing only the elements from the specified start index (inclusive) up to but not including the end index.
2. **Filter**: The `filter()` method creates a new array containing all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Slice**:
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient when you need to retrieve a subset of an array, as it only creates a new array with the desired elements.
		- Can be more predictable in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates a new array, which can lead to increased memory usage if the original array is large.
		- May not be suitable for scenarios where you need to modify the original array.
* **Filter**:
	+ Pros:
		- Does not create a new array, so it's more memory-efficient than `slice()`.
		- Allows for more flexibility in terms of modifying the original array or iterating over the filtered elements.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of creating and managing the filter function.
		- May have additional computational overhead depending on the complexity of the filter function.

**Library usage**

Neither `slice()` nor `filter()` rely on any specific libraries. They are built-in methods in JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `findIndex()` is used to find the index of the first element that passes the test. This method was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides a more efficient way to search for an element within an array.

**Other alternatives**

If you don't have access to JavaScript's built-in methods, you can also implement these functionality using `for` loops or other custom iteration mechanisms.

Here are some additional benchmarking considerations:

* The test may benefit from using more realistic input data, such as random numbers or strings.
* Adding a warm-up period before running the actual benchmarks can help account for any initial performance overhead.
* Running multiple iterations with different inputs or conditions can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net's benchmarks are designed to be simple and easy to understand, so you may want to explore more complex scenarios and edge cases to get a deeper understanding of the performance implications.

Related benchmarks:

slice vs filter m (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs filter

Created: one year 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):