Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
asdadssadasd
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
spread vs concat
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var baseArray = new Array(10000); var newArray = new Array(5000);
Tests:
spread
var other = [...baseArray, ...newArray];
concat
var other = baseArray.concat(newArray);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
spread
concat
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):
I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined using JSON, which contains the following information: * `Name` and `Description`: These are arbitrary names for the benchmark, but they're not used in the actual testing. The benchmark doesn't have a description either. * `Script Preparation Code`: This is a JavaScript code snippet that prepares the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it creates two arrays: `baseArray` with 10,000 elements and `newArray` with 5,000 elements. **Individual Test Cases** There are two test cases defined in the benchmark: 1. **"spread"`: * The benchmark definition is: `var other = [...baseArray, ...newArray];` * This code uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array that concatenates both `baseArray` and `newArray`. 2. **"concat"`: * The benchmark definition is: `var other = baseArray.concat(newArray);` * This code uses the `concat()` method to concatenate `baseArray` and `newArray`. **Comparison** The two test cases compare the performance of using the spread operator (`...`) versus the `concat()` method to concatenate arrays. **Pros and Cons** * **Spread Operator (```)**: + Pros: More concise and readable, can be faster for large datasets because it avoids creating a temporary array. + Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't understand the spread operator. * `concat()` Method: + Pros: Widely supported across browsers and environments, easy to understand. + Cons: Can create a temporary array, which may slow down performance for large datasets. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, it does use the spread operator (`...`), which is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES7). **Other Considerations** The benchmark measures the execution time of both test cases on the same input data. This allows for a fair comparison between the two approaches. If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options: * **Array.prototype.push()**: Instead of using `concat()` or spread operator, you could use `push()` to add elements to an array. However, this method is less efficient than concatenation. * **array.reduce()**: You could also use `reduce()` to concatenate arrays, but this would require a more complex implementation. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and performance requirements. I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark!
Related benchmarks:
Splice vs Spread vs Unshift to insert at beginning of array (fixed from slice)
Big Array prepend
teststest
adsasd
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?