Benchmark: spread vs push 3

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [...new Array(100)].map((v, i) => i);

Tests:

spread
const result = [...arr, 100];
push
const result = arr.push(100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is tested?**

MeasureThat.net tests two approaches for adding an element to an array:

1. **Spread operator (`...`)**: The `spread` method creates a new array by copying elements from an existing array and appending a new element.
2. **Array's `push()` method**: The `push()` method adds one or more elements to the end of an array.

**Options comparison**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: Creates a shallow copy of the original array, which can be beneficial for certain use cases. It's also a concise way to create a new array.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `push()` due to the overhead of creating a new array and copying elements. Also, it may not work well with large arrays or complex data structures.
* **Array's `push()` method**:
	+ Pros: Faster than the spread operator since it only modifies the existing array without creating a new one. It's also more efficient for large arrays.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for small arrays or when working with complex data structures, as it may require additional memory allocations.

**Library and special JS features**

Neither of these approaches relies on any specific libraries or JavaScript features other than the standard array methods.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code creates an empty array `arr` with 100 elements using the spread operator:
```javascript
var arr = [...new Array(100)].map((v, i) => i);
```
This creates a new array with 100 elements, where each element is the current index `i`. The resulting array is then passed to the benchmark test.

**Individual test cases**

The two individual test cases are:

1. **`spread`**: `const result = [...arr, 100];`
2. **`push`**: `const result = arr.push(100);`

These test cases measure the execution time of each approach for adding a single element (the number 100) to the original array.

**Latest benchmark result**

The latest benchmark result shows that:

* The `push()` method is faster than the spread operator, with an average execution time of around 4.2 seconds per second.
* The Safari 16 browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device is the fastest performer for both test cases.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are some additional options:

1. **Using `concat()`**: Instead of using the spread operator or `push()`, you could use the `concat()` method to add a new element to the array: `arr.concat([100])`. This approach is often slower than both spread and push.
2. **Using `splice()`**: Another option is to use the `splice()` method to insert a new element at a specific index: `arr.splice(0, 0, 100)`. However, this approach can be more complicated to implement and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics and are often used in specific situations where the spread or push operators aren't sufficient.

Related benchmarks:

spread vs push 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs push

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

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):