Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
EGO concat vs spread Small Array Objects
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
concat vs spread
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var base = [{id: 114, letter: 'r'}, {id: 115, letter: 's'}, {id: 116, letter: 't'}];
Tests:
concat
var toMerge = [{id: 97, letter: 'a'}, {id: 98, letter: 'b'}, {99: 114, letter: 'c'}, {id: 101, letter: 'e'}, {id: 102, letter: 'f'}, {id: 103, letter: 'g'}, {id: 104, letter: 'h'}, {id: 105, letter: 'i'}, {id: 106, letter: 'j'}, {id: 107, letter: 'k'}, {id: 108, letter: 'l'}, {id: 109, letter: 'm'}, {id: 110, letter: 'n'}, {id: 111, letter: 'o'}, {id: 112, letter: 'p'}, {id: 113, letter: 'q'}]; var merged = base.concat(toMerge);
spread
var toMerge = [{id: 97, letter: 'a'}, {id: 98, letter: 'b'}, {99: 114, letter: 'c'}, {id: 101, letter: 'e'}, {id: 102, letter: 'f'}, {id: 103, letter: 'g'}, {id: 104, letter: 'h'}, {id: 105, letter: 'i'}, {id: 106, letter: 'j'}, {id: 107, letter: 'k'}, {id: 108, letter: 'l'}, {id: 109, letter: 'm'}, {id: 110, letter: 'n'}, {id: 111, letter: 'o'}, {id: 112, letter: 'p'}, {id: 113, letter: 'q'}]; var merged = [...base, ...toMerge];
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
concat
spread
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 benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to concatenate small array objects: `concat` and `spread`. The script preparation code provides an initial array `base` with 3 elements, and a second array `toMerge` with 13 elements. The concatenation operation is performed using both methods, and their execution times are compared. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **`concat`**: Uses the `concat()` method to concatenate the two arrays. 2. **`spread`**: Uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate the two arrays. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **`concat`**: + Pros: More traditional and widely supported syntax, can be used with other array methods like `push()`. + Cons: Can be slower than spread operator for large arrays due to the overhead of function calls. * **`spread`**: + Pros: Generally faster than `concat()` for large arrays since it avoids function call overhead. Also, more concise syntax. + Cons: Less familiar syntax compared to traditional `concat()`, and not supported by older browsers. **Library/Functionality Used** None of the test cases use any external libraries or functions beyond standard JavaScript array methods (e.g., `concat()`). **Special JS Features/Syntax** The `spread` operator (`...`) is used in the second test case. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 and allows for a more concise way to concatenate arrays. **Other Alternatives** If you needed an alternative approach, other methods could be: * Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` or `Array.prototype.push()` with a callback function. * Using `Array.prototype.slice()` followed by assignment (e.g., `base = base.concat(toMerge)`). * Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for performance-critical code. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project, such as compatibility with older browsers or the need for concise syntax.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs slice and push with arrays of objects
unshift vs spread vs concat
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator on large array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?