Benchmark: ob slice vs spread

Tests:

slice
const numArray = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] numArray.slice(1)
spread
const numArray = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] const [,...newNumArray]= numArray;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice	42619216.0 Ops/sec
spread	44165596.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into sections to make it easier to understand.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. Each test case has a unique "Benchmark Definition" that defines the code snippet to be executed.

In this specific case, there are only two test cases:

1. `slice`: This benchmark definition uses the `slice()` method to create a new array containing all elements except the first one.
2. `spread`: This benchmark definition uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array from the original array.

**Options compared**

The options being compared in this test case are:

* `slice()`: A built-in JavaScript method that returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array.
* `...`: The spread operator, which creates a new array by spreading the elements of an existing array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

* `slice()`:
	+ Pros: Efficient for large arrays, easy to use, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for small arrays due to overhead from creating a copy.
* `...` (spread operator):
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient for most use cases, can be more concise than `slice()`.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected in older browsers or with certain array types.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions rely on any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these benchmark definitions. The code snippets only use built-in methods and operators.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other options, here are some alternative approaches:

* `filter()`: Instead of using `slice()` or the spread operator, you could use the `filter()` method to create a new array with only the desired elements.
* `map()`: Similar to `filter()`, but would be used when you need to transform each element in the array before creating a new one.
* Manual looping: You could also use manual loops (e.g., `for` or `while`) to iterate over the array and create a new one, but this would likely be slower than using built-in methods like `slice()` or the spread operator.

Overall, these benchmark definitions are designed to test the performance of JavaScript arrays using two common methods: `slice()` and the spread operator.

Related benchmarks:

ob slice vs spread (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs spread

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice

spread

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):