Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test another
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
push vs concat
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
const alphabet = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789_' function build_array(size){ const a = [] for (let i = 0; i < size; ++i) { let at = (Math.random() * alphabet.length) | 0 a.push(alphabet[at]) } return a }
Tests:
push
build_array(500).push(...build_array(500))
concat
build_array(500).concat(build_array(500))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
push
concat
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):
I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, options being compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two different approaches to concatenate or append arrays: using `push` and `concat`. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code defines a function called `build_array(size)` that generates an array of random characters from a predefined alphabet string. This function is used in both test cases. ```javascript function build_array(size) { const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < size; ++i) { let at = (Math.random() * alphabet.length) | 0; a.push(alphabet[at]); } return a; } ``` **Options Being Compared** There are two test cases: 1. **`push` approach**: `build_array(500).push(...build_array(500))` 2. **`concat` approach**: `build_array(500).concat(build_array(500))` These approaches differ in how they append the second array to the first. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`push` approach**: * Pros: Can be more efficient when dealing with large arrays, as it avoids creating a new array. * Cons: Can lead to slower performance for smaller arrays due to the overhead of calling `push()`, which creates a new element in the array's internal buffer. 2. **`concat` approach**: * Pros: Generally faster and more readable than using `push()`. * Cons: Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive for large inputs. In this specific case, both approaches are designed to test the concatenation operation, but the results may vary depending on the size of the input arrays and the specific JavaScript engine being used. **Other Considerations** * The `push` approach might outperform the `concat` approach when working with very large arrays, as it avoids creating a new array. However, this comes at the cost of readability and maintainability. * The `concat` approach is generally considered more readable and easier to understand, making it a better choice for most use cases. **Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider: 1. **Using `Array.prototype spread operator` (ES6+)**: Instead of using `push()` or `concat()`, you can use the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate arrays. ```javascript build_array(500).spread(...build_array(500)); ``` This approach is more readable and avoids creating a new array. 2. **Using `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: You can use `reduce()` to concatenate arrays, which can be more efficient than using `push()` or `concat()`. ```javascript build_array(500).reduce((a, b) => a.concat(b), []); ``` However, this approach may not be as readable as the spread operator. Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches are typically small and may depend on specific use cases and JavaScript engines.
Related benchmarks:
Check first character 2
test another2
Better set.has vs array.includes
hgftyguhijokpl[;]
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?