Benchmark: concat vs lodash.concat vs array spread 4.17.21 objects

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
const params = [ { id: `2` }, { id: `3` }, { id: `4` } ]; const other = [ { id: `1` } ].concat(params);
Lodash concat
const params = [ { id: `2` }, { id: `3` }, { id: `4` } ]; const other = _.concat([ { id: `1` } ], params);
Array spread
const params = [ { id: `2` }, { id: `3` }, { id: `4` } ]; const other = [ { id: `1` }, ...params ];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
Lodash concat
Array spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of three approaches to concatenate arrays: `Array.prototype.concat`, Lodash's `_concat` function, and array spread operator (`...`).

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **`Array.prototype.concat`**: This tests how fast it is to concatenate an array with another array using the `concat` method.
2. **Lodash's `_concat` function**: This tests how fast it is to concatenate two arrays using Lodash's `_concat` function.
3. **Array spread operator (`...`)**: This tests how fast it is to concatenate an array with another array using the array spread operator.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* `Array.prototype.concat`
* Lodash's `_concat` function
* Array spread operator (`...`)

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **`Array.prototype.concat`**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, simple to use.
	+ Cons: can be slower than other approaches for large arrays.
* **Lodash's `_concat` function**:
	+ Pros: optimized for performance, uses a dedicated implementation.
	+ Cons: requires Lodash library inclusion, may not be suitable for all projects.
* **Array spread operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: concise and readable syntax, fast execution.
	+ Cons: requires modern JavaScript support (ECMAScript 2018+), can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.

**Library Used**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a set of high-order functions for functional programming. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_concat` function is used to concatenate arrays.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The array spread operator (`...`) is a relatively new feature in JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2018). It allows elements to be "spread" into an array or object, effectively concatenating them.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to concatenate arrays, here are a few options:

* Using `Array.prototype.push`: `params.push(...other)`, which can be slower than the other approaches.
* Using a simple loop: `for (let i = 0; i < params.length; i++) { other.push(params[i]); }`, which can also be slow.

However, for most use cases, the three approaches tested in this benchmark (`Array.prototype.concat`, Lodash's `_concat` function, and array spread operator (`...`)) are likely to be sufficient.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.128 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.concat	6693155.0 Ops/sec
Lodash concat	1930905.9 Ops/sec
Array spread	41807216.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

concat vs lodash.concat vs array spread 4.17.21 objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs Lodash concat vs Array spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

Lodash concat

Array spread

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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