Benchmark: push vs spread vs concat two big arrays 100000

Tests:

push
const n = 100000; const a1 = Array(n).fill(2); const a2 = Array(n).fill(3); a1.push(...a2);
spread
const n = 100000; const a1 = Array(n).fill(2); const a2 = Array(n).fill(3); [...a1,...a2]
concat
const n = 100000; const a1 = Array(n).fill(2); const a2 = Array(n).fill(3); a1.concat(a2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
spread
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of three different approaches to concatenate two large arrays: `push`, `spread`, and `concat`.

**Options Compared**

Here are the options being compared:

1. **`push`**: Using the `push()` method with the spread operator (`...`) to add elements to an array.
2. **`spread`**: Using the spread operator (`[...]`) to create a new array by copying elements from another array.
3. **`concat`**: Using the `concat()` method to concatenate two arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **`push`**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance for very large arrays due to its overhead.
2. **`spread`**:
	* Pros: Efficient and scalable, especially for larger arrays.
	* Cons: Requires modern JavaScript features (ECMAScript 2015+).
3. **`concat`**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and understand, widely supported, but may be slower than `push`.
	* Cons: May lead to increased memory usage due to the creation of new arrays.

In general, `spread` is considered a good choice for large arrays, while `push` is suitable for smaller arrays. The `concat` method falls in between.

**Library and Purpose**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have internal optimizations or micro-optimizations that can affect performance, which might be accounted for when running these benchmarks.

**Special JS Features**

None of the tested approaches rely on special JavaScript features beyond what's considered standard in modern browsers (ECMAScript 2015+). However, if you were to run this benchmark with an older browser or environment that doesn't support `spread`, it would likely fall back to using `concat` or another approach.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for concatenating arrays include:

1. **Using a reducer function**: You can use the `reduce()` method to concatenate arrays, which can be more efficient than other methods for large arrays.
2. **Using a loop**: A simple loop can also be used to concatenate two arrays.
3. **Using a library like Lodash**: If you need additional functionality beyond basic array concatenation, libraries like Lodash provide optimized and robust implementations.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

push vs spread vs concat two big arrays 100000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs spread vs concat

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

spread

concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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