Benchmark: push vs spread vs concat irekkk

Tests:

push
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const b = [i]; a.push(...b); }
spread
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const b = [i]; a = [...a, ...b] }
concat
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const b = [i]; a = a.concat(b) }

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 and analyze the provided benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests three different approaches for adding elements to an array:

1. `push()`: The `push()` method adds one or more elements to the end of an array.
2. Spread operator (`...`): The spread operator creates a new array by spreading the elements of another array.
3. `concat()` method: The `concat()` method returns a new array created by concatenating the elements of two or more arrays.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches in different scenarios:

* Each approach is tested with an empty array (`a`) and 10,000 iterations, where each iteration adds a new element to the array.
* The spread operator is tested with both `push()` and `concat()` methods.

**Pros and Cons**

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

1. **Push()**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient
		+ Can be used with arrays that already have elements
	* Cons:
		+ May cause additional memory allocations, leading to slower performance in some cases
		+ May not work well with very large arrays or sparse arrays (arrays with many empty slots)
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a new array without modifying the original array
		+ Can be used with any type of data, including arrays and objects
	* Cons:
		+ May create unnecessary intermediate arrays, leading to slower performance
		+ May cause additional memory allocations
3. **Concat() method**
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a new array without modifying the original array
		+ Can be used with any type of data, including arrays and objects
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than `push()` and spread operator in most cases
		+ May cause additional memory allocations

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark does not consider other factors that can affect performance, such as the size of the input array or the specific use case.
* The benchmark does not account for potential issues with sparse arrays (arrays with many empty slots) or very large arrays.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions explicitly uses a library. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may use internal libraries to optimize certain operations, such as array manipulation.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks. They only use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in methods.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing performance, consider the following:

* **Using `Array.prototype.set()` method**: This method can provide better performance than `push()` for dense arrays.
* **Using `TypedArrays`**: TypedArrays are a type of array that provides optimized memory usage and faster access to elements.
* **Optimizing array operations using browser-specific APIs**: Some browsers, such as Chrome, provide API optimizations for specific use cases, like array concatenation or spread operation.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and target browser.

Related benchmarks:

push vs spread vs concat irekkk (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs spread vs concat

Created: 6 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):