Benchmark: spread and push 1

Script Preparation code:

var x = new Array(100);

for (var i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
  x[i] = { item : (new Array(100)).fill(Math.floor(Math.random() * i)) };
}



window.top.tests = {aPush:[], aSpread:[]};
window.test = x;
window.cutoff = 5000;

Tests:

push
for (let element of window.test) window.top.tests.aPush.push(...element.item); if (window.top.tests.aPush.length > window.cutoff) { window.top.tests.aPush = []; console.log('reset control'); }
spread
for (let element of window.test) window.top.tests.aSpread = [...window.top.tests.aSpread,...element.item]; if (window.top.tests.aSpread.length > window.cutoff) { window.top.tests.aSpread = []; console.log('reset control'); }

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is set up to measure the performance of two different approaches: using `push()` with spread syntax (`...`) and using spread syntax directly (`[...]`). The script preparation code generates an array `x` containing 100 objects, each with a nested array of 100 random numbers. The outer loop iterates over `x`, assigning each object to the `tests.aPush` or `tests.aSpread` arrays.

**Script Preparation Code:**

```javascript
var x = new Array(100);

for (var i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
  x[i] = { item : (new Array(100)).fill(Math.floor(Math.random() * i)) };
}

window.top.tests = {aPush:[], aSpread:[]};
window.test = x;
window.cutoff = 5000;
```

This code prepares the benchmark data, assigning objects to `tests.aPush` and `tests.aSpread`.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **push**: Measures the performance of using `push()` with spread syntax (`...`) when adding elements to an array.
```javascript
for (let element of window.test) window.top.tests.aPush.push(...element.item);
if (window.top.tests.aPush.length > window.cutoff) { window.top.tests.aPush = []; console.log('reset control'); }
```

Pros:

* Simple and efficient way to add elements to an array.

Cons:

* May lead to inefficient use of memory if the array grows too large.
* Can be slower than other methods due to the overhead of creating a new array for each element.

2. **spread**: Measures the performance of using spread syntax directly (`[...]`) when adding elements to an array.
```javascript
for (let element of window.test) window.top.tests.aSpread = [...window.top.tests.aSpread,...element.item];
if (window.top.tests.aSpread.length > window.cutoff) { window.top.tests.aSpread = []; console.log('reset control'); }
```

Pros:

* More efficient than `push()` when dealing with large arrays.
* Can be faster due to the optimization of array concatenation.

Cons:

* Requires JavaScript 13+ support (previously known as "spread syntax" or "rest parameter syntax").
* May lead to unexpected behavior if not used correctly.

**Library and Special JS Feature:**

No libraries are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the `fill()` method is used to populate the nested arrays, which can be a performance bottleneck for large datasets.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested, as both test cases use standard JavaScript methods and data structures.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to measuring array concatenation performance, consider:

1. Using `concat()` method instead of spread syntax (`[...]`).
2. Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a binary tree.
3. Measuring the performance of other methods, such as using `Array.prototype.map()` or `Array.prototype.forEach()`.
4. Testing the performance of specific libraries or frameworks that implement array concatenation optimizations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not directly relate to the benchmark's primary goal and may require additional setup and testing.

Related benchmarks:

spread and push 1 (version: 0)

idk

Comparing performance of: push vs spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

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):