Benchmark: Array.Prototype.at vs index

Tests:

Array.at()
const arr = ['a','b', 1, 2, true, false]; const val = arr.at(2);
Index
const arr = ['a','b', 1, 2, true, false]; const val = arr[2];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.at()
Index

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

On MeasureThat.net, the provided benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches to access an element in an array:

1. **`arr.at(2)`**: This method is used to access the 3rd element of the array (index 2) using the `Array.prototype.at()` method.
2. **`arr[2]`**: This is a direct index-based approach, accessing the 3rd element of the array by its numeric index.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares these two approaches:

* **`Array.prototype.at(2)`**: This method is used to access an element in an array, and it's designed to be more intuitive and readable than traditional indexing.
* **Direct Indexing (`arr[2]`)**: This approach uses the numeric index of the desired element.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Array.prototype.at(2)`**:
	+ Pros: More intuitive, readable, and maintainable code. It's also a good way to avoid off-by-one errors.
	+ Cons: Performance might be slower due to the overhead of this method.
* **Direct Indexing (`arr[2]`)**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster, as it avoids the overhead of the `at()` method.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive and less readable, which can lead to off-by-one errors.

In general, if code readability is important and maintainability is a concern, using `Array.prototype.at(2)` might be preferred. However, if performance is critical, direct indexing (`arr[2]`) would be the better choice.

**Other considerations**

* **Browser support**: The `at()` method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10). If you need to support older browsers or environments that don't support this feature, direct indexing (`arr[2]`) might be a safer option.
* **Array size and performance**: As the array grows, the difference between these approaches may become less noticeable. However, for small arrays, direct indexing (`arr[2]`) will generally be faster.

**Library and special JS features**

There is no library involved in this benchmark. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other benchmarking options on MeasureThat.net, here are a few examples:

* Compare the performance of different array data structures (e.g., `ArrayBuffer`, `TypedArray`, etc.)
* Benchmark the speed of various JavaScript algorithms (e.g., sorting, searching, etc.)
* Test the performance of different JavaScript engines or browsers

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is primarily focused on measuring JavaScript performance and benchmarking microbenchmarks.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.at()	209412784.0 Ops/sec
Index	225160640.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.Prototype.at vs index (version: 0)

Measures performance between using arr.at(1) to access an element in an array and arr[1]

Comparing performance of: Array.at() vs Index

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.at()

Index

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):