Benchmark: push instead of spread

Tests:

Spread
const showBulkCheckbox = true; const items = [ ...(showBulkCheckbox ? [ 1, ] : []), 2, 3, 4, ];
If
const showBulkCheckbox = true; const items = []; if (showBulkCheckbox) { items.push(1); } items.push(2, 3, 4)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Spread
If

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Spread	45248912.0 Ops/sec
If	79322920.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the JavaScript microbenchmark test on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format, which provides details about the test case:

*   `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which in this case is "push instead of spread".
*   `Description`: This field is empty, indicating that no additional description is provided for the benchmark.
*   `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are also empty, suggesting that there's no need to specify any setup code before running the benchmark.

**Options Compared**

The test case compares two approaches:

1.  Using the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array with elements from an existing array.
2.  Pushing individual elements onto an array using the `push()` method.

These two approaches are being compared in terms of performance, specifically execution speed and number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

*   **Using Spread Operator (`...`)**
    *   Pros:
        *   More concise code.
        *   Can be more efficient for creating arrays with many elements.
        *   Less chance of introducing bugs due to incorrect indexing or out-of-bounds access.
    *   Cons:
        *   Might have higher overhead due to the creation of a new array object.
        *   Can lead to slower performance if the resulting array is very large.

*   **Pushing Individual Elements**
    *   Pros:
        *   Typically faster since it avoids creating a new array object and only adds elements to an existing one.
        *   More suitable for scenarios where you need to add elements dynamically or when working with large arrays.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can lead to more complex code, especially when dealing with multiple push operations or array indexing.
        *   Introduces the risk of bugs due to incorrect indexing or out-of-bounds access.

**Libraries and Special Features**

The benchmark doesn't use any external libraries. It's a native JavaScript implementation, which means it only relies on built-in JavaScript features and functions.

However, there are some special features in this benchmark:

*   **Template Literals**: The `...` operator is being used with template literals, which allows for more readable code when working with arrays or other iterable data structures. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as part of the template literals feature.

**Alternatives**

If you want to write similar benchmarks using a different approach, here are some alternatives:

*   **Sandboxing**: Instead of running the benchmark directly on MeasureThat.net's servers, you could use a sandboxing environment like `es6-sandbox` or `jsben` to run your benchmark and collect performance data.
*   **Testing Frameworks**: There are various JavaScript testing frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or AVA that can help you write, execute, and analyze your benchmarks. These frameworks often provide more features than the MeasureThat.net benchmarking tool.
*   **Benchmarking Libraries**: Some libraries like ` benchmark`, `benchmark.js`, or `js-benchmark` offer more advanced benchmarking capabilities and might be suitable for creating high-performance microbenchmarks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different strengths, weaknesses, and use cases compared to MeasureThat.net's simple yet effective approach.

Related benchmarks:

push instead of spread (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Spread vs If

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Spread

If

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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