Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
array concat vs spread (1000)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
concat vs spread
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr1 = []; var arr2 = []; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { arr1.push(i); arr2.push(i+1000); }
Tests:
concat
var result = arr1.concat(arr2);
spread
var result = [...arr1, ...arr2]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
concat
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark in question is designed to compare two approaches for concatenating arrays: `concat()` and spread syntax (`...`). The test case uses an array `arr1` and another array `arr2`, both initialized with 1000 elements. The script preparation code creates these arrays using a `for` loop, and the HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case) provides no additional context. Now, let's break down what's being tested: **Approach 1: Concat()** The first test case measures the performance of using the `concat()` method to concatenate `arr1` and `arr2`. This method creates a new array by combining two or more arrays. **Pros:** * Wide browser support: The `concat()` method has been around since the early days of JavaScript and is supported by most browsers. * Easy to understand: The syntax is straightforward, making it easy for developers to comprehend. **Cons:** * Creates a new array: This approach requires allocating memory for a new array, which can be slower than other methods that manipulate existing arrays in place. **Approach 2: Spread syntax** The second test case measures the performance of using the spread syntax (`...`) to concatenate `arr1` and `arr2`. This method is a shorthand way of creating a new array by spreading the elements of an existing array. **Pros:** * In-place manipulation: The spread syntax allows manipulating existing arrays in place, reducing memory allocation overhead. * Modern syntax: The spread syntax is a modern feature that has gained widespread adoption since its introduction in ECMAScript 2015. **Cons:** * Browser support: While the spread syntax is widely supported, older browsers might not recognize it or might behave differently. MeasureThat.net's test case runs on Chrome 118, which supports the spread syntax. * Less intuitive for some developers: The spread syntax can be less familiar to developers who are not used to its syntax. The benchmark results show that the `concat()` method outperforms the spread syntax in this particular test case, with an execution rate of approximately 866914 executions per second compared to 146319.40625 for the spread syntax. However, it's essential to note that these results might vary depending on the specific use case and browser. In terms of alternatives, other approaches to concatenate arrays include: * Using `Array.prototype.push()` with a loop: This method involves pushing elements from one array into another using a loop. * Utilizing `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Array.prototype.splice()`: These methods can be used to extract or manipulate subsets of an array. Keep in mind that the best approach often depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.concat vs push w/ spread operator vs spread operator
Array concat() vs spread concat
.concat vs. spread
Large Array: concat vs spread vs push
Array concat vs spread operator vs push large
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?