Benchmark: Large Array concat vs Array.push vs push

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = new Array(10000); var other = [ 1, 2 ].concat(params);
spread operator
var params = new Array(10000); var other = [ 1, 2 ] Array.prototype.push.apply(params, other)
Push
var params = new Array(10000); var other = [ 1, 2 ].push(...params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator
Push

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 provided benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to concatenate arrays:

1.  `Array.prototype.concat()`: This method takes an array and another array as arguments, and returns a new array containing all elements from both arrays.
2.  The spread operator (`...`): Introduced in ES6, this operator allows you to expand an iterable (like an array) into individual elements that can be used inside the expression.
3.  `Array.prototype.push()`: This method adds one or more elements to the end of the current array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches on an array with 10,000 elements:

*   `Array.prototype.concat()`
*   The spread operator (`...`)
*   `Array.prototype.push()`

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons of each approach:

*   **`Array.prototype.concat()`**:
    *   Pros: Can be used with arrays of any size, works well for concatenating multiple smaller arrays.
    *   Cons: Creates a new array, which can lead to higher memory usage. Also, it can be slower than other approaches for large arrays due to the overhead of creating a new array and copying elements from both arrays.
*   **The spread operator (`...`)**:
    *   Pros: More efficient than `concat()` because it only requires passing the individual elements of one array to the `push()` method, rather than copying all elements from both arrays. Also, it's more concise and modern syntax.
    *   Cons: May not be as intuitive for beginners or when working with older browsers that don't support the spread operator. Can also lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., spreading an empty array can result in no changes).
*   **`Array.prototype.push()`**:
    *   Pros: Most efficient because it only requires updating the length of the current array, which is O(1) operation.
    *   Cons: Can be less readable and more error-prone than `concat()` or the spread operator, especially when dealing with larger arrays.

**Library usage**

None of these test cases use any external libraries. They rely solely on built-in JavaScript functionality for their operations.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The spread operator (`...`) is a new syntax introduced in ES6, which allows you to expand an iterable into individual elements. It's not supported in older browsers or environments that don't have modern JavaScript engines.

**Other alternatives**

Some other approaches to concatenate arrays include:

*   `Array.prototype.splice()`: While this method can be used for array concatenation, it modifies the original array and has additional overhead compared to `push()`.
*   Custom implementation using loops: This would require manual iteration over each element of the arrays being concatenated.

Related benchmarks:

Large Array concat vs Array.push vs push (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method and push

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs Push

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

Push

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):