Benchmark: spread vs push vs unshift vs spread2

Tests:

spread
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; params = [ ...params, "444"];
push
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] params.push("444");
unshift
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] params.unshift("444");
spread2
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; params = ["444", ...params];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
push
unshift
spread2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks!

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test case created on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of four different methods to concatenate arrays: `push`, `unshift`, and two variants of the new ES6 spread operator (`spread` and `spread2`). The test is designed to measure the execution speed of these operations.

**Tested Options**

1. **Push**: This method involves appending an element to the end of an array using the `push()` method.
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large arrays due to the need to reallocate memory.
2. **Unshift**: This method involves inserting an element at the beginning of an array using the `unshift()` method.
	* Pros: Can be faster than `push` for large arrays, as it avoids reallocation.
	* Cons: May have slower performance due to the need to create a new array with the correct length.
3. **Spread**: This method uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate an existing array with a new array.
	* Pros: Can be faster than `push` and `unshift`, as it avoids reallocation.
	* Cons: Requires support for ES6 spread syntax, which may not be present in older browsers or environments.
4. **Spread2**: This method is similar to the original `spread` variant but uses an arrow function (`[...params]`) instead of the spread operator.
	* Pros: Can be faster than `push` and `unshift`, as it avoids reallocation.
	* Cons: Requires support for ES6 spread syntax and arrow functions, which may not be present in older browsers or environments.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

The test case uses a library to execute the benchmarking code. The exact library is not specified in the provided JSON, but MeasureThat.net often uses `V8` (a popular JavaScript engine used by Google Chrome) as the default environment for its benchmarks.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark except for the ES6 spread operator and arrow functions, which are widely supported in modern browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to experiment with different array concatenation methods, here are a few alternatives:

1. `concat()`: This method creates a new array by copying elements from an existing array.
2. **Array.prototype.concat()**: Similar to the above, but uses the `concat()` method on the prototype of the Array class.
3. **Array.prototype.splice()**: This method modifies the original array and inserts a new element at a specified position.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs in terms of performance and complexity.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the execution speed of each test case on a Chrome 105 browser running on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device. The results indicate that `spread` and `unshift` are relatively fast, while `push` is slower due to reallocation.

Related benchmarks:

spread vs push vs unshift vs spread2 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method and push

Comparing performance of: spread vs push vs unshift vs spread2

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

push

unshift

spread2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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