Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
spread vs concat vs unshift vs flat v2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
spread vs concat vs concat2 vs unshift vs flat
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
spread
const a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const b = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const c = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const result = [...a, ...b, ...c];
concat
const a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const b = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const c = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const result = a.concat(...b, ...c);
concat2
const a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const b = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const c = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const result = a.concat(b).concat(c);
unshift
const a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const b = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const c = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const result = a.unshift(...b, ...c);
flat
const a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const b = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const c = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]; const result = [a,b,c].flat();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (5)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
spread
concat
concat2
unshift
flat
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):
Based on the benchmark results, it appears that the `flat()` method has an execution time of approximately 37.45 seconds per iteration. To determine whether this is fast or slow, let's compare it to some common JavaScript operations: * Accessing an element in an array: O(1) * Updating an element in an array: O(1) * Pushing a new element onto the end of an array: O(n) * Concatenating two arrays: O(n + m) Considering these relative performance characteristics, a flat execution time of approximately 37.45 seconds per iteration would be relatively slow for JavaScript. However, without more context or information about the specific use case and requirements, it's difficult to provide a definitive answer on whether this is "fast" or not. If you can provide more details about your use case, such as: * The size of the arrays being flattened * The number of iterations performed * Any additional computations being done after flattening I may be able to provide a more informed assessment.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.concat vs Spread operator
concat 2 arrays: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
unshift vs spread vs concat
spread vs concat vs unshift to join arrays
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator 12
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?