Benchmark: Array literal vs. string#split()

Tests:

Array literal
const x = ["nanosecond", "microsecond", "millisecond", "second", "minute", "hour"]; x[0].length;
Array#split()
const x = "nanosecond microsecond millisecond second minute hour".split(" "); x[0].length;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array literal
Array#split()

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 16_3_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.3 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.3.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array literal	91142512.0 Ops/sec
Array#split()	3356219.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the test case and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to extract the length of the first element from an array (or string) in JavaScript:

1. **Array literal**: Creating an array with a specific set of values and then accessing the length of its first element.
2. **String#split()**: Splitting a string into an array using the `split()` method and then accessing the length of the first element.

**Options compared**

In this case, there are only two options being compared:

* Array literal (using `[ ]` syntax)
* String#split() (using `string.split(' ')` syntax)

**Pros and Cons**

**Array Literal:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Fast and efficient for small arrays

Cons:

* May not work as expected with large or complex arrays, due to memory allocation issues
* May not be optimized by the JavaScript engine

**String#split():**

Pros:

* Can handle large strings and arrays efficiently
* Optimized by the JavaScript engine for performance

Cons:

* More verbose syntax compared to array literal
* May have overhead due to string manipulation

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark may also consider other factors, such as:

* Browser support: Are both approaches supported by all major browsers?
* Edge cases: How do these approaches handle edge cases, such as empty arrays or strings?

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this case, there are no libraries used, but it's worth noting that the `split()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that operates on strings.

There are no special JS features being tested in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other aspects of JavaScript performance, consider benchmarks involving:

* Arrow functions
* Async/await
* Promises
* Web Workers

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing array and string manipulation performance include:

* Using different data types, such as arrays vs. objects or strings vs. integers
* Exploring caching and memoization techniques to optimize performance
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines, such as V8 (Chrome) vs. SpiderMonkey (Firefox)
* Testing the impact of JavaScript version updates on performance

Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript performance can be complex and nuanced, and there are many factors to consider when interpreting results.

Related benchmarks:

Array literal vs. string#split() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array literal vs Array#split()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array literal

Array#split()

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):