Benchmark: spread/concat large

Tests:

spread
// Used to popolate the arrays to merge with 10.000.000 elements. let array1 = []; let array2 = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) { array1.push(i); array2.push(i); } const array3 = [ ...array1, ...array2 ];
concat
// Used to popolate the arrays to merge with 10.000.000 elements. let array1 = []; let array2 = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) { array1.push(i); array2.push(i); } // The concat performance test. const array3 = array1.concat(array2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
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.

Measuring performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks can be complex, and the results might vary depending on several factors such as hardware, software environment, system load, etc.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions:

1. **Spread Operator**: This test case uses the spread operator (`...`) to merge two arrays of 10 million elements each. The code creates two empty arrays and then populates them with numbers from 0 to 9,999,999 using a `for` loop. Finally, it merges the two arrays together using the spread operator.
2. **Concatenation**: This test case uses the `concat()` method to merge two arrays of 10 million elements each.

**Options compared**

In both cases, the options being compared are:

* Spread Operator (`...`)
* Concatenation (`concat()`)

These two approaches have different performance characteristics due to how they handle array merging and memory allocation.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Spread Operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient in terms of memory allocation, as it creates a new array without shifting elements.
		+ Can be more cache-friendly, as it allows the browser to optimize memory allocation.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires modern browsers that support the spread operator ( introduced in ECMAScript 2015).
2. **Concatenation (`concat()`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across older browsers and versions of JavaScript.
		+ Can be more straightforward to implement, as it's a built-in method.
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient due to memory allocation and shifting elements.
		+ May not be cache-friendly.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The spread operator (`...`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. It allows for creating new arrays by spreading elements from an existing array into a new one.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to compare these two approaches with other methods, you might consider:

1. **Array slicing**: Instead of using the spread operator or concatenation, you could use array slicing (`array1.slice(0).concat(array2)`).
2. **Array.prototype.push()**: You could also use `push()` method on an empty array to add elements from another array.
3. **WebAssembly (WASM)**: If performance is critical, you might consider using WASM, which can provide significant performance improvements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs and may not be suitable for all scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

spread/concat large (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs concat

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

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):