Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
concspretest
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
c vs sp
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
c
const arr1= [[1,2]]; const arr2 = [[2,3], [1,2]]; arr1.concat(arr2);
sp
const arr1= [[1,2]]; const arr2 = [[2,3], [1,2]]; [...arr1, ...arr2]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
c
sp
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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is not explicitly stated in the provided JSON, but based on the script preparation code, it appears that the benchmark is testing the performance of array concatenation methods. **Script Preparation Code** There are two scripts: 1. `const arr1 = [[1,2]];` - creates a 2D array with one element. 2. `const arr2 = [[2,3], [1,2]];` - creates another 2D array with multiple elements. 3. Either the first script is followed by the second script in a specific order (`arr1.concat(arr2);`) or the second script is used directly (`[...arr1, ...arr2]`). **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. `c`: This test case uses the `.concat()` method to concatenate the arrays. 2. `sp`: This test case uses the spread operator (`[...]`) to concatenate the arrays. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is testing the performance of these two array concatenation methods: `.concat()` and spread operator. **Options compared** * `.concat()` * Spread operator (`[...]`) **Pros and Cons** * `.concat()`: This method creates a new array by concatenating the elements from both arrays. It has a time complexity of O(n) because it needs to iterate over each element in both arrays. However, it can be slower than other methods due to this overhead. * Spread operator (`[...]`): This method also creates a new array by concatenating the elements from both arrays, but it is generally faster than `.concat()` because it avoids the overhead of iterating over each element in the first array. **Special considerations** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** * Other methods for concatenating arrays could be tested, such as using `Array.prototype.push()` and `Array.prototype.splice()`, or even using a custom loop to concatenate the elements. However, these methods would likely be slower than `.concat()` and spread operator due to their implementation details. * For a more comprehensive benchmark, additional test cases could be added to cover other scenarios, such as: + Concatenating arrays of different lengths + Concatenating objects instead of arrays + Using `Array.prototype.concat()` with multiple arguments (e.g., `[...arr1, ...arr2, ...arr3]`) + Testing the performance of concatenation methods on large datasets **Library** There is no library used in this benchmark. Note that the provided JSON only includes the benchmark definition and test cases. Without additional information about the environment or setup, it's difficult to provide a more detailed analysis of the benchmark results.
Related benchmarks:
var only vs let + const
concat vs spread perfs
Array.concat vs native array spread
IIFE vs regular code
undefined comparison
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?