Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>I was just taking a look through the source for the examples on the three.js github page, and I came across this ImprovedNoise class, which is basically a Perlin noise script:</p> <p><a href="https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/examples/js/ImprovedNoise.js" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/examples/js/ImprovedNoise.js</a></p> <p>At the very top of the ImprovedNoise function is this:</p> <pre><code>var p = [151,160,137,91,90,15,131,13,201,95,96,53,194,233,7,225,140,36,103,30,69,142,8,99,37,240,21,10, 23,190,6,148,247,120,234,75,0,26,197,62,94,252,219,203,117,35,11,32,57,177,33,88,237,149,56,87, 174,20,125,136,171,168,68,175,74,165,71,134,139,48,27,166,77,146,158,231,83,111,229,122,60,211, 133,230,220,105,92,41,55,46,245,40,244,102,143,54,65,25,63,161,1,216,80,73,209,76,132,187,208, 89,18,169,200,196,135,130,116,188,159,86,164,100,109,198,173,186,3,64,52,217,226,250,124,123,5, 202,38,147,118,126,255,82,85,212,207,206,59,227,47,16,58,17,182,189,28,42,223,183,170,213,119, 248,152,2,44,154,163,70,221,153,101,155,167,43,172,9,129,22,39,253,19,98,108,110,79,113,224,232, 178,185,112,104,218,246,97,228,251,34,242,193,238,210,144,12,191,179,162,241,81,51,145,235,249, 14,239,107,49,192,214,31,181,199,106,157,184,84,204,176,115,121,50,45,127,4,150,254,138,236,205, 93,222,114,67,29,24,72,243,141,128,195,78,66,215,61,156,180]; for (var i=0; i &lt; 256 ; i++) { p[256+i] = p[i]; } </code></pre> <p>You'll notice that p is populated with a randomly-sorted array of the numbers 0 to 255. Once the <code>p</code> array is established, the script does a <code>for</code> loop over every position in the array and effectively latches a copy of itself from positions 256 to 511. The order is the same, but the indexes are shifted by 256.</p> <p>So my question is this: is it faster in JavaScript to loop over an array like this or to simply do..</p> <pre><code>p = p.concat(p); </code></pre>
    singulars
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USfinishingmove
    1. UStreeface
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    2. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    3. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
      1. UStradyblix
      1. VTFavorite
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COCan't you just time it?
      singulars
      1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
      1. USPwnna
    2. COYou should try http://jsperf.com/
      singulars
      1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
      1. USJames Montagne
    3. CO[Benchmark](http://jsperf.com/concat-vs-forloop)
      singulars
      1. POIs concatenating an array to itself faster than looping through the array to create more indexes?
      1. USRaynos
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload