Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
spread vs push...yo
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
push vs spread
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
push
let x = (new Array(200)).fill(null).map((e, i) => (i)) let y = (new Array(200)).fill(null).map((e, i) => (i)) let z = x.push(...y)
spread
let x = (new Array(200)).fill(null).map((e, i) => (i)) let y = (new Array(200)).fill(null).map((e, i) => (i)) let z = [...x, ...y]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
push
spread
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: using `push` versus using spread operator (`...`) when combining arrays. The benchmark is designed to test how these two approaches compare in terms of execution speed and throughput. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, we have two options compared: 1. **Using `push`**: This approach uses the `push()` method to add elements to an array. It takes an element as an argument and pushes it onto the end of the existing array. 2. **Using spread operator (`...`)**: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate two arrays into a new array. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief analysis of each approach: * **Using `push`**: + Pros: Can be more efficient for small arrays since it avoids creating a new array. + Cons: Creates a new element on the stack, which can lead to increased memory allocation and deallocation overhead. Also, pushing elements onto an array can lead to collisions if the array is not properly initialized or maintained. * **Using spread operator (`...`)**: + Pros: More concise and expressive than using `push`. It also avoids creating a new element on the stack. + Cons: Creates a new array in memory, which can be slower for large arrays. Additionally, it may lead to increased garbage collection overhead. **Library and Special JS Features** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark code. However, it's worth noting that both approaches rely on JavaScript's built-in array methods (`push()` and spread operator) and do not require any external libraries or dependencies. **Special JS Feature** One special feature being utilized here is **optional chaining (?.)**. Although not explicitly used in these two test cases, the `map()` method may utilize optional chaining internally to access array elements. **Other Considerations** When comparing these two approaches, we should also consider factors like: * Array initialization and allocation overhead * Cache locality and memory alignment * Garbage collection and object pooling * Modern browser optimizations and compiler tricks **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative methods for combining arrays, here are a few options: 1. **Array.prototype.concat()**: This method concatenates two or more arrays into a new array. 2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This method applies a reduction function to each element of an array, which can be used to combine arrays. 3. **Array.prototype.flat()**: This method flattens an array (i.e., converts nested arrays into a one-dimensional array), but it's not exactly equivalent to combining two arrays. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to the `push` and spread operator approaches.
Related benchmarks:
spread operator vs push test - correct
spread vs push test1
spread operator vs push Brian
spread operator vs push Brian2
zk test spread vs push
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?