Benchmark: JS array spread vs concat vs avoiding

Tests:

JS spread
const arr1 = [ 1,2,3 ]; const arr2 = [ 4,5,6 ]; function sum(arr){ return arr.reduce((prev, curr) => prev + curr, 0); } sum([...arr1,...arr2]);
JS Concat
const arr1 = [ 1,2,3 ]; const arr2 = [ 4,5,6 ]; function sum(arr){ return arr.reduce((prev, curr) => prev + curr, 0); } sum(arr1.concat(arr2));
Avoiding
const arr1 = [ 1,2,3 ]; const arr2 = [ 4,5,6 ]; function sum(arr){ return arr.reduce((prev, curr) => prev + curr, 0); } sum(arr1) + sum(arr2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS spread
JS Concat
Avoiding

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing three approaches to summing two arrays:

1. **Avoiding**: Directly calling the `sum` function with `arr1` and `arr2` as separate arguments, without using any concatenation or spreading.
2. **JS spread**: Using the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate `arr1` and `arr2`.
3. **JS Concat**: Using the `concat()` method to concatenate `arr1` and `arr2`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches:

* Avoiding: Directly calling the function with separate arguments.
* JS spread: Using the spread operator to concatenate arrays.
* JS Concat: Using the `concat()` method to concatenate arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Avoiding**: This approach can be beneficial when:
	* You're working with large datasets, as it avoids creating a new array.
	* You want to minimize memory allocation.
However, it's not suitable for small datasets or when performance is critical.

2. **JS spread**: Using the spread operator is often more readable and concise than other methods. However, it may:
	* Create a new array in memory.
	* Be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array.

3. **JS Concat**: This method is often faster than using the spread operator, as it avoids creating a new array. However, it can be less readable and more verbose.

**Library: `reduce()`**

The `sum` function uses the `reduce()` method, which applies a binary function (in this case, addition) to each element of an array, accumulating the results in a single output value. This is a common JavaScript pattern for summing arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in these test cases. The focus is on understanding how different approaches can be implemented and optimized.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to summing two arrays could include:

* Using the `for` loop or `forEach()` method with a callback function.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash, which provides a `sumBy()` function for summing arrays.
* Employing parallel processing techniques, such as using Web Workers or Node.js clusters.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and considerations. The benchmark results can provide insights into the performance characteristics of different methods, helping developers make informed decisions about their code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/96.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JS spread	26566022.0 Ops/sec
JS Concat	6716915.0 Ops/sec
Avoiding	143478752.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS array spread vs concat vs avoiding (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS spread vs JS Concat vs Avoiding

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS spread

JS Concat

Avoiding

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):