Benchmark: Splice vs Spread vs Unshift vs Push to insert at beginning of array

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array.from({ length: 2000 }).map((val, i) => i);

Tests:

Splice
var newArray = array.splice(0, 0, 99);
Spread
var newArray = [99, ...array];
Unshift
var newArray = array.unshift(99);
Push
var newArray = array.push(99);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Splice
Spread
Unshift
Push

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing four different methods to insert an element at the beginning of an array:

1. `Splice`: Using the `splice` method with two arguments (index and number of elements to remove).
2. `Spread`: Using the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array with the original array as its first element.
3. `Unshift`: Using the `unshift` method to add one or more elements at the beginning of an array.
4. `Push`: Using the `push` method to add one or more elements at the end of an array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these four methods on a large array (2000 elements) with different types and values of elements.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Splice**: This method has a good balance between speed and flexibility. However, it requires two arguments (index and number of elements to remove), which can be error-prone if not used carefully.
* **Spread**: This method is concise and easy to read, but it creates a new array with the original array as its first element. This might lead to extra memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
* **Unshift**: This method is fast and efficient, but it only adds one element at a time. If you need to add multiple elements, this approach can be less efficient than `splice` or `push`.
* **Push**: This method is simple and easy to use, but it adds elements at the end of the array, which might not be the most efficient way to insert an element at the beginning.

**Library used:**

None explicitly mentioned. However, the benchmark uses the `Array.from()` method to create a large array with 2000 random values, which suggests that modern JavaScript environments support this method.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses the spread operator (`...`) in the "Spread" test case, which is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for concise and expressive array creation.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses Firefox 102 as the browser, which might not be representative of other browsers or environments.
* The number of elements in the original array (2000) is relatively small compared to some benchmarks that test performance with much larger arrays.
* The benchmark only tests these four methods, which might not cover all possible scenarios for inserting elements at the beginning of an array.

**Alternatives:**

Other methods for inserting elements at the beginning of an array include:

* `concat()`: This method creates a new array by concatenating two or more arrays. However, it's generally slower and less efficient than the other methods.
* `Array.prototype.concat.call(array, [99])`: This method is similar to `concat()`, but uses the `call()` method to call the `concat()` function on an array with an initial value.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as fast or efficient as the benchmark's chosen methods.

Related benchmarks:

Splice vs Spread vs Unshift vs Push to insert at beginning of array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Splice vs Spread vs Unshift vs Push

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Splice

Spread

Unshift

Push

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):