Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator - larger arrays
(version: 0)
Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method
Comparing performance of:
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr1 = []; var arr2 = []; for(let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { arr1.push(i); arr2.push(i); }
Tests:
Array.prototype.concat
[].concat(arr1, arr2);
spread operator
[...arr1, ...arr2];
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator
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 benchmarking scenario. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for concatenating arrays in JavaScript: `Array.prototype.concat()` and the spread operator (`...`). The test case uses larger arrays (1 million elements each) as specified in the "Script Preparation Code" section of the benchmark definition. **Options Compared** There are two options compared: 1. **`Array.prototype.concat(arr1, arr2)`**: This is the traditional method for concatenating two arrays using the `concat()` function on the `Array.prototype`. 2. **`[...arr1, ...arr2]`**: This uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by spreading the elements of `arr1` and `arr2`. **Pros and Cons** * **`Array.prototype.concat(arr1, arr2)`**: + Pros: Widely supported in older browsers, easy to read and understand. + Cons: Less efficient than the spread operator, can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new function call. * **`[...arr1, ...arr2]`**: + Pros: More efficient than `concat()`, takes advantage of modern JavaScript's syntax improvements. + Cons: Requires support for the spread operator (introduced in ES6), may be less readable to those unfamiliar with it. **Library and Syntax** There is no specific library used in this benchmark. However, the use of the spread operator (`[...arr1, ...arr2]`) introduces a new syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Other Considerations** * Browser support: The benchmark measures performance on Chrome 91, which supports the spread operator. * Device and operating system: The test is run on a desktop platform with Mac OS X 10.15.7. **Alternatives** If you wanted to compare other concatenation methods or explore different approaches, some alternatives could include: * Using `Array.prototype.push()` instead of `concat()` * Comparing the performance of `concat()` and spread operator in older browsers that don't support modern syntax features. * Evaluating the impact of using `concat()` vs. spread operator on memory allocation and garbage collection. Overall, this benchmark is designed to demonstrate the efficiency difference between two common concatenation methods in JavaScript, highlighting the benefits of newer syntax features like the spread operator.
Related benchmarks:
concat 2 arrays: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator - small arrays
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (new try)
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator on large array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?