Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
reduce.concat() vs flat() vs concat(...)
(version: 0)
Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method
Comparing performance of:
reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat vs concat(...)
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var params = [ [1, 2], ["hello", true, 7], Array(10000).fill(4), ];
Tests:
reduce + Array.prototype.concat
const x = params.reduce((acc, val) => acc.concat(val), []);
Array.prototype.flat
const x = params.flat(1);
concat(...)
const x = [].concat(...params)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce + Array.prototype.concat
Array.prototype.flat
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The test compares three approaches to concatenate arrays: 1. `reduce.concat()` 2. `Array.prototype.flat` (with a depth of 1, i.e., `flat(1)`) 3. `concat(...)` (spread operator) These methods are alternatives to the traditional `concat()` method. **Options Compared** The three options are compared in terms of their performance, which is measured by the number of executions per second. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`reduce.concat()`**: This approach uses the `reduce()` method to concatenate arrays. It's a more functional programming style way of doing things. However, it might have some overhead due to the use of the `reduce()` method. * Pros: Can be more concise and expressive. * Cons: Might have higher overhead due to the use of `reduce()`. 2. **`Array.prototype.flat(1)`**: This approach uses the `flat()` method with a depth of 1 to flatten arrays. It's a built-in method in modern JavaScript, but it can be slower than traditional concatenation methods. * Pros: Fast and efficient way to flatten arrays. * Cons: Only flattens arrays, not concatenates them directly. 3. **`concat(...)`**: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate arrays. It's a concise and readable way to do things. * Pros: Fast and efficient, easy to read. * Cons: Might have some overhead due to the use of the spread operator. **Library Used** None explicitly mentioned, but the `Array.prototype.flat()` method is a built-in part of modern JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2019). **Special JS Features or Syntax** The test uses the spread operator (`...`) for the third approach. This is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. **Other Alternatives** There are other ways to concatenate arrays, such as using `Array.prototype.push()` and `Array.prototype.splice()`, but these approaches might not be as efficient or readable as the ones being compared. In summary, the benchmark compares three alternative methods for concatenating arrays: `reduce.concat()`, `Array.prototype.flat(1)`, and `concat(...)` (spread operator). Each method has its pros and cons in terms of performance, readability, and conciseness.
Related benchmarks:
reduce.concat() vs flat()
reduce.concat() vs flat(1)
reduce.concat() vs flat() right way
reduce.concat() vs flat() copy
reduce.concat() vs flat() 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?