Benchmark: slice vs filter2

Script Preparation code:

var test=Array.from({length: 20000},()=>Math.random())

Tests:

slice
[...test.slice(0,50),...test.slice(51)]
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 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 17_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 17 on iOS 17.1.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice	13932.5 Ops/sec
filter	13201.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark being measured.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark measures the performance of two JavaScript methods: `Array.prototype.slice()` and `Array.prototype.filter()`. Specifically, it tests how fast these methods can create a new array by selecting a subset of elements from an existing array. The test creates an array of 20,000 random numbers using `Array.from()`, and then uses each method to extract two different subsets of the same size (50 elements) from the original array.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **`slice()`**: This method returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array, starting from the index specified by `start` and ending at the index before `end`.
2. **`filter()`**: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.

**Pros and cons:**

* **`slice()`**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than `filter()`, as it only needs to access the original array's indices, whereas `filter()` needs to iterate over each element.
	+ Cons: Can be less efficient if used with large arrays or when accessing specific elements far from the start of the array.
* **`filter()`**:
	+ Pros: More flexible than `slice()`, as it can be used to filter out multiple conditions, not just based on indices.
	+ Cons: Generally slower than `slice()`, due to the overhead of iterating over each element.

**Other considerations:**

Both methods have a time complexity of O(n), where n is the length of the array. However, in practice, `filter()` may perform worse than expected if the function being filtered has a high number of iterations or side effects, as it can lead to more work being done by the browser's garbage collector.

**Library and purpose:**

The `Array.from()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that creates a new array from an iterable (e.g., an array literal, a string, or a function). Its purpose is to provide a convenient way to create arrays in a more expressive and flexible manner.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None of the code mentioned uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect its performance. However, it's worth noting that using `Array.prototype.slice()` and `Array.prototype.filter()` can lead to memory allocation issues if not used carefully, as they create new arrays with copied references.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need a more efficient way to select subsets of an array, you may consider using:

* **`Array.prototype.subarray()`**: This method is similar to `slice()`, but it also includes the specified end index in the resulting subarray.
* **`Array.prototype.map()`**, **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**, or other methods that process arrays with a callback function: These methods can provide more flexibility, but may have different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case.

Keep in mind that the choice of method ultimately depends on your specific requirements and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

slice vs filter2 (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):