Benchmark: testtest2223yyyppee

Tests:

push
var arr = Array(10).fill().map((o, i) => ({ id: i })); var list = arr.reduce((acc, cur) => { acc.push(cur); return acc; }, []);
spread
var arr = Array(10).fill().map((o, i) => ({ id: i })); var list = arr.reduce((acc, cur) => { return [ ...acc, cur ]; }, [])

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches to create an array of objects and then push an object onto it using `push()` method, and another approach using the spread operator (`...`) to achieve the same result. The benchmarks are designed to measure how fast each approach can iterate over the array and add a new element.

**Options compared**

There are two main approaches being compared:

1. **`arr.push(cur)`**: This is the traditional way of adding an element to the end of an array in JavaScript.
2. **`[ ...acc, cur ]`**: This uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by spreading the existing `acc` array and then appending the new element `cur`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Traditional approach (`arr.push(cur)`)**:
	* Pros: widely supported, easy to understand.
	* Cons: can be slow for large arrays because it involves resizing the internal array buffer of the original array.
2. **Spread operator approach (`[ ...acc, cur ]`)**:
	* Pros: often faster than the traditional approach because it avoids the need to resize the internal array buffer.
	* Cons: may not work as expected in older browsers or JavaScript engines that don't support the spread operator.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmarks use a fixed array size of 10 elements, which is small enough to fit into the browser's cache and avoid page reloads. This ensures consistent results across different runs.
* The `map()` function is used to generate an array of objects with unique IDs, which helps mask any performance variations due to garbage collection or other overheads.

**Library usage**

There doesn't appear to be any external libraries being used in these benchmarks. The JavaScript code is self-contained and only relies on built-in functionality.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The spread operator (`...`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a new way of creating arrays by spreading existing arrays or other iterable objects. This syntax has been widely adopted in modern JavaScript development, but may not be supported by older browsers or environments.

Now that you know what's being tested and compared, feel free to ask if you have any more questions!

Related benchmarks:

testtest2223yyyppee (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: push vs spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

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):