Benchmark: push, concat, spread on a simple array

Tests:

push
var array = ["val1", "val2", "val2", "val4", "val5", "val6", "val7", "val8"]; array.push("val9");
concat
var array = ["val1", "val2", "val2", "val4", "val5", "val6", "val7", "val8"]; array.concat(array, "val9");
spread
var array = ["val1", "val2", "val2", "val4", "val5", "val6", "val7", "val8"]; array = [...array, "val9"];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
concat
spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
push	35044408.0 Ops/sec
concat	2642395.0 Ops/sec
spread	23999042.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches: `push`, `concat`, and `spread` on a simple array of strings. The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest.

**Options Compared**

1. **Push**: This method uses the `array.push()` method to append a new element to the end of the array.
2. **Concat**: This method uses the `array.concat()` method with an additional argument to concatenate two arrays (in this case, the original array and an array containing a single element).
3. **Spread**: This method uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by copying elements from the original array and appending a new element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Push**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, no additional memory allocation or concatenation is required.
	* Cons: May involve more overhead due to the need to increment the length property of the array, which can lead to slower performance in some browsers.
2. **Concat**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than `push` because it avoids incrementing the length property of the array. However, it requires additional memory allocation and concatenation, which can introduce overhead.
	* Cons: Requires an additional method call (`concat()`), which may lead to slower performance due to the overhead of function calls.
3. **Spread**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than `push` because it avoids incrementing the length property of the array and only requires a single expression.
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation due to the creation of a new array, which can lead to slower performance.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark cases use any libraries or external dependencies. The tests only involve basic JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses some older JavaScript syntax, such as:

* `var` declarations (instead of `let` or `const`)
* The `push()` method (which is still supported in modern browsers)
* The `concat()` method (which is also still supported in modern browsers)

However, it's worth noting that the benchmark does not use any newer JavaScript features such as arrow functions, template literals, or async/await.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider testing other approaches, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.set()` instead of `push()`
* Using `Array.prototype.splice()` instead of `concat()`
* Using `Array.prototype.push.apply()` instead of `push()`
* Using modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops or `map()`/`filter()` methods

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches may vary depending on the browser and JavaScript engine being used.

Related benchmarks:

push, concat, spread on a simple array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs concat vs spread

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

concat

spread

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):