Benchmark: spread array performance (vs slice, splice, concat, Array.from)

Tests:

Splice
const testArray = [1, 2, 3]; const newTestArray = testArray.splice(0);
Slice
const testArray = [1, 2, 3]; const newTestArray = testArray.slice();
Concat
const testArray = [1, 2, 3]; const newTestArray = testArray.concat();
Spread
const testArray = [1, 2, 3]; const newTestArray = [...testArray];
Array.From
const testArray = [1, 2, 3]; const newTestArray = Array.from(testArray);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Splice
Slice
Concat
Spread
Array.From

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 microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for measuring the performance of different array manipulation methods in JavaScript. The benchmark tests the execution speed of four different approaches:

1. **Splice**: Uses the `splice()` method to create a new array by removing the first element from the original array.
2. **Slice**: Uses the `slice()` method to create a shallow copy of the original array, starting from index 0 and going until the end of the array.
3. **Concat**: Uses the `concat()` method to concatenate two arrays: the original array and an empty array created with `Array(0)` or `[ ]`.
4. **Spread**: Uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by spreading the elements of the original array.

**Options Comparison**

The pros and cons of each approach are:

* **Splice**:
	+ Pros: Efficient way to remove an element from the beginning of an array.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array object, which can lead to memory allocation overhead. Also, it modifies the original array, which might not be desirable in some cases.
* **Slice**:
	+ Pros: Creates a shallow copy of the original array, without modifying it. It's a safe and predictable way to create a new array.
	+ Cons: Can lead to performance issues if the original array is large or if the slice operation is done frequently.
* **Concat**:
	+ Pros: Allows for more flexibility in creating a new array, as you can concatenate multiple arrays together.
	+ Cons: Creates a new array object and copies all elements from the original arrays, which can lead to performance issues with large arrays.
* **Spread**:
	+ Pros: A concise way to create a new array by spreading its elements. It's also relatively efficient compared to `concat()`.
	+ Cons: Can lead to performance issues if used excessively or with very large arrays.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark tests use any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

The tests do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is standard in modern JavaScript implementations (ECMAScript 2015+).

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative array manipulation methods that could be tested in this benchmark include:

* Using `Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()` to create a new array.
* Using `Array.from()` with an iterable argument, like an array or a set, to create a new array from the elements of another collection.
* Using `Array.prototype.every()`, `Array.prototype.some()`, `Array.prototype.find()`, and other methods for filtering and searching arrays.

However, these alternatives might not be as commonly used or recognized by developers, so they may not provide meaningful results in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

spread array performance (vs slice, splice, concat, Array.from) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Splice vs Slice vs Concat vs Spread vs Array.From

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Splice

Slice

Concat

Spread

Array.From

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):