Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
slice vs concat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Concat vs Slice
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
Slice
Tests:
Concat
const params = ['oui', 3, false] const other = params.concat()
Slice
const params = ['oui', 3, false] const other = params.slice()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Concat
Slice
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'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `concat()` and `slice()`. These two methods are used to create copies of an array in JavaScript. **What is being tested?** In this benchmark, we're testing how fast each method creates a copy of an array. The array contains three elements: `'oui'`, `3`, and `false`. **Options compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`concat()`**: This method creates a new array by concatenating the original array with an empty array (`[]`). It returns a new array object. 2. **`slice()`**: This method returns a shallow copy of a portion of an array, creating a new array object. **Pros and Cons** **`concat()`** Pros: * Easy to understand and implement * Can be used in conjunction with other methods (e.g., `push()`, `splice()`) * Works well for small arrays Cons: * Creates a new empty array on each call, which can lead to memory allocation overhead * Returns a new array object, which can cause unnecessary copies of the original array's references **`slice()`** Pros: * More efficient than `concat()` because it only creates a copy of the portion of the array being sliced * Avoids creating an empty array on each call Cons: * May not be as intuitive to use for beginners, especially if they're not familiar with slicing arrays * Returns a new array object, which can cause unnecessary copies of the original array's references (although less so than `concat()`) **Other considerations** Both methods have performance implications. In general, `slice()` is faster because it creates a copy of only the specified portion of the array, while `concat()` creates a new empty array and then concatenates the original array to it. **Library usage** In this benchmark, no libraries are used beyond what's built-in to JavaScript. **Special JS feature or syntax** This benchmark uses some common JavaScript features: arrays, concatenation (`+`), and the spread operator (`...`). Note that there is no explicit use of `new Array()` in either test case. **Other alternatives** If you're looking for alternative methods to create copies of arrays, you might consider: * Using `Array.prototype.map()` (not applicable here since we want a shallow copy) * Implementing your own array copying function using loops * Utilizing libraries like Lodash (`_.slice()`) or Underscore (`_.clone()`) The benchmark highlights the trade-offs between `concat()` and `slice()` in terms of performance, memory usage, and code readability. It's essential to understand when to use each method based on your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Concat vs Slice
Spred add vs slice concat
slice+push vs concat
Concat vs Slice f1
Concat vs Slice!!
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?