Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Concat vs forEach 11122223333456
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
concat 1111222233334 vs forEach 1111222233334
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = [ "id", "workspaceId", "name", "description", "snippet", "iconEmoji", "iconImage", "relationFormat", "type", "layout", "isHidden", "isArchived", "isReadonly", "isDeleted", "isFavorite", "done", "fileExt", "fileMimeType", "sizeInBytes", "restrictions", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", ];
Tests:
concat 1111222233334
[].concat(a);
forEach 1111222233334
var set = new Set(); a.forEach(key => set.add(key));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
concat 1111222233334
forEach 1111222233334
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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net! **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches to concatenate an array: 1. `concat()`: A built-in JavaScript method for concatenating arrays. 2. `forEach()`: An iterator method that executes a function for each element in the array. The test case uses an array `a` with 16 elements, which is created using the provided script preparation code. **Options being compared** Two options are being compared: 1. `concat()` 2. `forEach()` with a `Set` object to store unique values. **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **concat()** * Pros: + Faster execution time (as it's a built-in method optimized for performance). + More predictable behavior, as the order of elements is preserved. * Cons: + Can be slower for very large arrays due to memory allocation and copying. + May not be suitable for cases where you need to process each element individually (e.g., using `forEach()`). 2. **forEach() with a Set** * Pros: + More efficient for large arrays, as it avoids the overhead of creating an intermediate array. + Suitable for cases where you need to process each element individually (e.g., using `forEach()`). * Cons: + May have slower execution time due to the overhead of iterating over the set and adding elements. + Less predictable behavior, as the order of elements may not be preserved. **Library and purpose** The `Set` object is a built-in JavaScript library that provides an efficient way to store unique values. In this test case, it's used to store unique values from the array `a`, allowing for more efficient iteration over the set. **Special JS feature or syntax (not applicable in this example)** There are no special JS features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are some alternatives: 1. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This method can be used to concatenate arrays, but it's generally slower than `concat()` due to the overhead of reducing the array. 2. **Array.prototype.join()**: This method can be used to concatenate arrays, but it's generally slower than `concat()` due to the overhead of creating a string buffer. 3. **Destructuring assignment**: Instead of using an intermediate array or set, you could use destructuring assignment to extract each element from the original array and process them individually. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be suitable for all cases, and performance testing should always consider the specific requirements of your use case.
Related benchmarks:
test1 array concat vs spred 3
benchmark: spread vs concat vs push
Concat vs forEach 1112222333345
concat vs spread three arrays
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?