Benchmark: push vs spread mine

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [1,2,3]

Tests:

push
arr.push(4)
spread
arr = [...arr, 4]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run benchmarks to compare the performance of different approaches. The benchmark definition contains the following elements:

*   **Name**: A unique name for the benchmark, which is "push vs spread mine" in this case.
*   **Description**: An optional description for the benchmark, which is null in this example.
*   **Script Preparation Code**: A piece of JavaScript code that prepares the test environment before running each benchmark. In this case, it initializes an array `arr` with values 1, 2, and 3.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

*   **Test Case 1: "push"**
    *   **Benchmark Definition**: The code that is executed to measure the performance of each browser. In this case, it's `arr.push(4)`.
*   **Test Case 2: "spread"**
    *   **Benchmark Definition**: The code that is executed to measure the performance of each browser. In this case, it's `arr = [...arr, 4]`.

**Options Compared**

These two test cases compare the performance of two approaches:

1.  Using the `push()` method: This method adds a new element to the end of the array and returns the updated array.
2.  Using array spread syntax (`arr = [...arr, 4]`): This syntax creates a new array by copying all elements from the original array and adding the new element.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **Push Method**
    *   Pros:
        *   More concise and expressive.
        *   Fewer operations are performed compared to the spread syntax (two vs four operations).
    *   Cons:
        *   May be slower due to the additional operation.
*   **Spread Syntax (`arr = [...arr, 4]`**
    *   Pros:
        *   More readable and easier to understand for some developers.
        *   Less error-prone compared to the push method (fewer operations).
    *   Cons:
        *   More verbose and less concise.
        *   May be slower due to the additional operation.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `arr` array and the `push()` and spread syntax are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the spread syntax (`arr = [...arr, 4]`), which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for more concise and expressive way of creating new arrays by copying elements from an existing array.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare performance with other approaches, here are some alternatives:

*   Using `concat()`: Instead of push or spread syntax, you can use the `concat()` method to concatenate arrays. The benchmark can be modified to include this test case.
*   Using `Array.prototype.reduce()`: You can also use `reduce()` to add elements to an array. This approach would require a different modification to the benchmark definition.

```javascript
arr = arr.reduce((acc, current) => acc.concat([current]), [1, 2, 3]);
```

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its pros and cons, and may not provide exactly the same performance characteristics as the push or spread syntax.

Related benchmarks:

push vs spread mine (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs spread

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

spread

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):