Benchmark: javascript LARGE concat vs spread operator vs push v3

Tests:

concat
var existed = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var params = new Array(100000); var other = existed.concat(params);
spread operator
var existed = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var params = new Array(100000); var other = [ ...existed, ...params ];
push
var existed = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var params = new Array(100000); var other = existed.push(...params);
push apply
var existed = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var params = new Array(100000); var other = existed.push.apply(existed,params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat
spread operator
push
push apply

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 benchmark test cases and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Test Cases:**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different ways to concatenate arrays in JavaScript:

1. **Concatenation (`concat`)**: Using the `concat()` method to add an array to another array.
2. **Spread Operator (`spread operator`)**: Using the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by copying elements from existing arrays.
3. **Push with Spread (`push apply`)**: Using the `push()` method with the spread operator (`...`) to add elements to an array.

**Options Compared:**

* **Concatenation (concat) vs Spread Operator**: Both methods involve creating a new array by combining two arrays, but they differ in syntax and implementation.
	+ Pros of Concatenation:
		- Easier to read and understand for developers familiar with the `concat()` method.
		- More predictable performance, as it directly calls the `concat()` function.
	+ Cons of Concatenation:
		- Creates a new array, which can lead to higher memory usage and slower performance compared to spread operator methods.
* **Spread Operator vs Push Apply**: Both methods use the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array, but they differ in how it's used with `push()`.
	+ Pros of Spread Operator:
		- More concise and readable syntax than `push apply`.
		- Can lead to faster performance due to direct access to array elements.
	+ Cons of Spread Operator:
		- Less intuitive for developers not familiar with the spread operator.
* **Push with Spread vs Push Apply**: Both methods use `push()` in combination with the spread operator, but they differ in how it's implemented.
	+ Pros of Push with Spread:
		- Combines readability of `push()` with conciseness of spread operator syntax.
	+ Cons of Push with Spread:
		- May lead to slower performance due to additional function call overhead.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Library Usage**: None of the test cases involve using external libraries, which simplifies the benchmarking process.
* **Special JS Features/Syntax**: The spread operator is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ES6), while `push apply` was introduced in older versions of JavaScript (e.g., IE11). Other features, such as `concat()`, have been part of the language since its inception.

**Alternatives:**

If you want to explore alternative methods for array concatenation, consider:

* **Array.prototype.push()` with an array argument
* **Array.prototype.unshift()`
* Using `reduce()` or `map()` to create a new array
* Using libraries like Lodash or Ramda for more concise and expressive array manipulation

Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

javascript LARGE concat vs spread operator vs push v3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concat vs spread operator vs push vs push apply

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concat

spread operator

push

push apply

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):