Benchmark: reduce.concat() vs flat() copy

Tests:

reduce + Array.prototype.concat
var params = [[ 1, 2 ], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.reduce((acc, val) => acc.concat(val), []);
Array.prototype.flat
var params = [[1, 2], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.flat();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce + Array.prototype.concat
Array.prototype.flat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

7.0M/s

Array.prototype.flat

4.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ reduce + Array.prototype.concat	7,031,940 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.flat	4,284,323 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to concatenate arrays: `reduce()` with `concat()`, and using the new ES6 spread operator (`...`). The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **`reduce + Array.prototype.concat`**: This test case uses the traditional approach of combining two arrays using `concat()` within a reduction loop.
2. **`Array.prototype.flat`**: This test case uses the new ES6 spread operator (`...`) to flatten an array.

**Libraries and Features**

* None, as both approaches are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two options:

1. **Traditional approach using `reduce()` and `concat()`:** This approach involves using a reduction loop with `reduce()` to iterate over each element in the array, and then using `concat()` to concatenate the resulting arrays.
2. **New ES6 spread operator (`...`):** This approach uses the spread operator to directly flatten the input array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Traditional approach using `reduce()` and `concat()`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established and widely supported.
		- Can be easily modified or extended for specific use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance overhead due to the use of `concat()`.
		- Can lead to unnecessary memory allocations.
* **New ES6 spread operator (`...`):**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive than traditional approaches.
		- Can be faster due to reduced function calls.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly with all types of arrays or data structures.
		- Limited support in older browsers or environments.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* If you need a simple and efficient way to concatenate small arrays, the spread operator (`...`) might be a better choice.
* If you're working with large datasets or need more control over the concatenation process, the traditional approach using `reduce()` and `concat()` might be more suitable.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for array concatenation include:

* **`Array.prototype.push()`:** This method appends new elements to the end of an array. While it's not as efficient as `concat()` or the spread operator, it can be useful in certain scenarios.
* **`Array.prototype.splice()`:** This method modifies an existing array by removing and/or inserting elements at a specified index. It's not typically used for simple array concatenation but can be useful in more complex operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have performance implications or require additional steps to achieve the desired result.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches to concatenate arrays: traditional using `reduce()` and `concat()`, and new ES6 spread operator (`...`). The choice between these options depends on specific requirements, performance considerations, and personal preference.

reduce.concat() vs flat() copy (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: `reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

Array.prototype.flat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

reduce.concat() vs flat() copy (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

Array.prototype.flat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat`