Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array.prototype.concat vs Set and function
(version: 0)
Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method
Comparing performance of:
Array.prototype.concat and Set vs function and Set
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Array.prototype.concat and Set
var first = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var second = [1,2,3,4,5] Array.from(new Set(first.concat(second)))
function and Set
var first = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var second = [1,2,3,4,5] function unit(a,b){ var arr = new Set() a.forEach((it)=>{ arr.add(it); }) b.forEach((it)=>{ arr.add(it); }) return Array.from(arr) } unit(first, second)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Array.prototype.concat and Set
function and Set
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):
**What is tested in the provided JSON?** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares two approaches to concatenate arrays: `Array.prototype.concat()` and using a `Set` object with the spread operator (`...`). **Options compared:** 1. **Traditional approach:** `Array.prototype.concat()`, which adds two or more arrays together, creating a new array. 2. **New ES6 spread operator approach:** Using a `Set` object and the spread operator to concatenate arrays. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **Traditional approach (`Array.prototype.concat()`):** Pros: * Wide browser support * Easy to implement Cons: * Creates a new array, which can lead to performance issues for large datasets. * Not as efficient as the spread operator approach. **New ES6 spread operator approach (using `Set` and spread operator):** Pros: * More efficient than the traditional approach, especially for large datasets. * Creates an iterable set of unique elements. Cons: * Requires modern browsers that support the spread operator (`...`). * Can be slower in older browsers. **Library usage:** The benchmark test uses no external libraries; it only relies on native JavaScript features. **Special JS feature or syntax:** The test case `function and Set` utilizes a custom function `unit()` with an arrow function (`=>`) inside, which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This is not relevant to the traditional approach. **Benchmark preparation code and setup:** Since this is a benchmarking test, no specific code needs to be provided; the JSON itself defines the test cases. However, it's likely that the script preparation code would involve initializing variables for the test arrays and defining the custom function `unit()` if needed. **Other alternatives:** If you wanted to compare other approaches, you could consider: 1. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provide efficient array concatenation methods. 2. Implementing a custom iterator-based approach. 3. Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey). However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient and might not offer significant improvements over the existing benchmark test.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.concat vs Spread operator
concat 2 arrays: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (fix)
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator on large array
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator on small array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?