Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
unshift
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
[123].concat(a) vs splice vs reverse.push.reverse vs unshift
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
Tests:
[123].concat(a)
[123].concat(a)
splice
a.splice(0,0,123)
reverse.push.reverse
a.reverse().push(123) a.reverse()
unshift
a.unshift(123)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
[123].concat(a)
splice
reverse.push.reverse
unshift
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definitions and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **Benchmark Definitions** The provided benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines three microbenchmarks: 1. `[123].concat(a)` 2. `a.splice(0, 0, 123)` 3. `a.reverse().push(123) a.reverse()` 4. `a.unshift(123)` These benchmarks test the performance of different array operations in JavaScript. **Options being compared** The options being compared are: * **Concatenation**: `[123].concat(a)` vs `a.splice(0, 0, 123)` + Pros: - Concatenation is a more traditional and widely supported approach. - It allows for easier addition of new elements to the array. + Cons: - Can be slower due to creating a new array object. * **Unshifting**: `a.unshift(123)` + Pros: - Unshifting is faster because it only updates the internal pointer of the array. - It's also more memory-efficient since no new array object is created. + Cons: - Not supported in all browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer). * **Splicing**: `a.splice(0, 0, 123)` + Pros: - Splicing can be faster than concatenation due to its more optimized implementation under the hood. + Cons: - Can be slower for very large arrays since it has to update all elements after the insertion point. **Other considerations** * **Array reversal**: `a.reverse().push(123) a.reverse()` + This benchmark is testing both the performance of reversing an array and pushing an element onto it. The `reverse()` method reverses the entire array, which can be slower than other methods. * **Loop optimizations** + It's worth noting that loop optimizations in JavaScript are generally not as effective as they are in languages like C++ or Java. **Library usage** There is no specific library used in these benchmarks. However, it's common for benchmarking to use libraries like `Benchmark` or `micro-benchmark`, which provide a simple way to write and run benchmarks. **Special JS features** None of the provided benchmarks use special JavaScript features like ES6 modules, async/await, or generators. If they did, we would need to consider how those features might affect the benchmarking process. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for measuring performance in JavaScript include: * **V8 Profiler**: Google's V8 engine provides a built-in profiler that allows you to analyze the execution time of individual functions and methods. * **Chrome DevTools**: Chrome's DevTools provide a Performance Tab where you can run benchmarks and view profiling data. * **Benchmarking libraries like Benchmark** or **micro-benchmark**: These libraries allow you to write simple, repeatable benchmarks for your JavaScript code. These alternatives might offer more detailed insights into performance characteristics than the `MeasureThat.net` benchmarking tool.
Related benchmarks:
concat vs spread funcking operator
a[n] | n in a | a.length-1==n | a.at(-1)==a[n]
Array concat vs spread on big array
spread vs concat vs unshift vs flat
spread vs concat vs unshift vs flat v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?