01 March 2012

You may have noticed that in my last article, I mentioned I would rather loop through copying arguments than slice them. That came out of this research: jsPerf.

var args = [1,2,3,4], i,
len = args.length,
arr = new Array(len);
for (i = 0; i < len; i += 1) {
arr[i] = args[i];

With relatively short lists, copying out performs slice by 4x or more (your browser mileage may vary). This is important for low-level frameworky things that get invoked a lot. Since well-designed methods often have signatures under 10 (hopefully way under 10), looping is faster in every browser I tested. Safari had the most interesting results in that copying was always faster. It makes me wonder how that native implementation really works.

Part of the technique is pre-allocating the array length you will copy into. That seems to make a difference in some browsers so it’s worth mentioning that I used that technique in my tests. I believe this makes a difference because the looping copy process does not need to change the allocated memory for the target array as we add new values. If that were the case, I would expect lower thresholds in the browsers where this matters, like Chrome, see jsPerf.

Lastly, I found an interesting jsPerf test around the same idea except I noticed they constructed the test incorrectly, testing the performance of function construction instead of just the cloning action. I rewrote the tests with what I learned from the other test into this one: jsPerf.

function clone(arr) {
var i, len = arr.length,
arr_clone = new Array(len);
for (i = 0; i < len; i += 1) {
arr_clone[i] = arr[i];
return arr_clone;

In conclusion, even when converted to a method, this technique can outperform native methods on short lists (although much less so). Given the smaller differences as a method, I would not advance the idea into a clone method on the Array prototype that switches techniques based on the current length–that additional logic would probably bring the overall speed down to native levels. Either copy in-line (only with small lists) or use a native method when performance matters.


blog comments powered by Disqus