Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
spread vs concat vs unshift (v2)
(version: 0)
spread vs concat vs unshift
Comparing performance of:
arrayUnshift123 vs arrayConcat123 vs arraySpread123
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = [1,2,3];
Tests:
arrayUnshift123
array.unshift(0);
arrayConcat123
array = [0].concat(array)
arraySpread123
array = [0, ...array]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
arrayUnshift123
arrayConcat123
arraySpread123
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 break down the explanation into sections to help understand what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark called "spread vs concat vs unshift (v2)". The benchmark compares three different ways to add an element to the beginning of an array: 1. `array.unshift(0)` 2. `array = [0].concat(array)` 3. `[...array, 0]` (spread syntax) **Options Compared** The three options are compared in terms of their performance. The benchmark aims to determine which method is fastest and most efficient. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Array.unshift(0)**: * Pros: Simple and intuitive. * Cons: This approach creates a new array and copies the original elements, resulting in a higher overhead due to memory allocation and copying. 2. **Array = [0].concat(array)**: * Pros: This approach uses the `concat()` method, which is a standard JavaScript method for concatenating arrays. * Cons: Creating an intermediate array creates additional overhead due to memory allocation and copying. 3. **[...array, 0]** (spread syntax): * Pros: This approach creates a new array without copying the original elements, resulting in less overhead. * Cons: Requires support for spread syntax (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), which might not be available in older browsers. **Library Usage** None of the test cases use any external libraries. The benchmark focuses solely on the performance comparison of the three array manipulation methods. **Special JS Features or Syntax** The spread syntax (`[...array, 0]`) uses a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for spreading arrays and objects into new arrays or objects. While most modern browsers support ES6 features, it's essential to note that older browsers might not. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark does not consider the size of the input array. Larger arrays would likely favor the `unshift()` method due to its simplicity. * The test cases are run on a specific browser (Firefox 63) and device platform (Desktop, Windows). Running the benchmark on different browsers or platforms might yield different results. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider using: 1. `Array.prototype.push()`: Similar to `unshift()` but appends elements to the end of the array. 2. `Array.prototype.splice()`: Replaces elements at a specified position with new values or adds new elements to the end of the array. 3. Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide optimized array manipulation functions. Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and use cases. The choice ultimately depends on your specific requirements and performance constraints.
Related benchmarks:
concat 2 arrays: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
concat vs unshift vs spread
unshift vs spread vs concat
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (new try)
spread vs concat vs unshift to join arrays
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?