Benchmark: Destructure vs lodash concat

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

Lodash
var params = [ "hello", "hello", "sname" ]; var other = _.concat([ "red", "wine" ], params);
Destructure
var params = [ "hello", "hello", "sname" ]; var other = [...params, "red", "wine" ];
Array.concat
var params = [ "hello", "hello", "sname" ]; var other = [ "red", "wine" ].concat(params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Destructure
Array.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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to concatenate an array with another array:

1. Using `lodash` library (specifically, its `concat` function)
2. Using JavaScript destructuring syntax (`...params`)
3. Using the built-in `Array.concat` method

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash` is used to concatenate an array with another array using its `concat` function.

Pros:

* Well-maintained and widely-used library
* Fast and efficient implementation

Cons:

* Requires including the entire library in your project, which may increase bundle size
* May not be suitable for very large datasets or performance-critical applications

**JavaScript Destructuring Syntax**

The destructuring syntax (`...params`) is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows you to extract values from an array using the spread operator.

Pros:

* Simple and concise syntax
* Fast and efficient implementation

Cons:

* Not all browsers support this syntax, although it's widely supported nowadays.
* May not be suitable for very large datasets or performance-critical applications.

**Built-in `Array.concat` method**

The built-in `Array.concat` method is a standard JavaScript function that concatenates two arrays.

Pros:

* Fast and efficient implementation
* Widely supported across browsers

Cons:

* Syntax can be less readable than other approaches
* May not be as performant as optimized libraries or custom implementations

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show the performance of each approach on a Chrome 107 browser on a Linux desktop. The results are in executions per second (EPs/s).

| TestName | ExecutionsPerSecond |
| --- | --- |
| Destructure | 62,678,024.0 |
| Array.concat | 14,589,925.0 |
| Lodash | 4,653,252.0 |

**Conclusion**

Based on the benchmark results, we can see that:

* JavaScript destructuring syntax is the fastest approach.
* The built-in `Array.concat` method is slower than destructuring but faster than using `lodash`.
* Using `lodash` is the slowest approach due to its larger bundle size and overhead.

When choosing an approach for performance-critical applications, consider factors like readability, maintainability, and compatibility with different browsers. For most cases, JavaScript destructuring syntax or the built-in `Array.concat` method may be suitable choices.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives for array concatenation include:

* Using `Array.prototype.push` method to concatenate arrays
* Using a custom implementation of `concat` using iteration or reduce()
* Using a specialized library like Underscore.js (another popular utility library)

Related benchmarks:

Destructure vs lodash concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Destructure vs Array.concat

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Destructure

Array.concat

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):