Benchmark: concat 1 vs multiple

Tests:

concat multiple
const arr1 = Array.from({ length: 5000}).map((_, i) => i); const arr2 = Array.from({ length: 5000}).map((_, i) => i); const arr3 = Array.from({ length: 5000}).map((_, i) => i); const finallArr1 = arr1.concat(arr2).concat(arr3);
concat 1
const arr1 = Array.from({ length: 5000}).map((_, i) => i); const arr2 = Array.from({ length: 5000}).map((_, i) => i); const arr3 = Array.from({ length: 5000}).map((_, i) => i); const finallArr1 = arr1.concat(arr2, arr3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat multiple
concat 1

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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested, the options compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object with three properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which in this case is "concat 1 vs multiple".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that no description is provided for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Both are null, meaning that no custom script or HTML preparation code is required for this benchmark.

**Test Cases**

The test cases are represented by an array of objects, each containing two properties:

* `Benchmark Definition`: A string representing the JavaScript code to be executed for each test case.
* `Test Name`: The name of the test case, which corresponds to one of the two options being compared: "concat 1" and "concat multiple".

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Concatenating three arrays using a single `concat` method**: This involves calling `concat` on an array with three arguments: `arr2` and `arr3`. The resulting array, `finallArr1`, is then assigned to a variable.
2. **Concatenating three arrays using separate `concat` calls**: This involves calling `concat` twice, once for each pair of arrays (`arr1.concat(arr2)` and `arr1.concat(arr3)`), and finally concatenating the results.

**Pros and Cons**

**Option 1: Concatenating three arrays using a single `concat` method**

Pros:

* More concise code
* Potential performance benefits due to reduced overhead

Cons:

* May be less readable or maintainable for some developers
* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., when dealing with large arrays)

**Option 2: Concatenating three arrays using separate `concat` calls**

Pros:

* More explicit and readable code
* Easier to understand and debug

Cons:

* Requires more code and potentially slower performance due to repeated concatenations

**Library Used**

None, as no libraries are mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to concatenating arrays.

**Other Alternatives**

For array concatenation, other alternatives might include using `flat()` or `reduce()` methods, which can be more efficient than traditional `concat` calls:

* Using `flat()`:
```javascript
const finallArr1 = arr1.flat(2);
```
* Using `reduce()`:
```javascript
const finallArr1 = arr1.reduce((a, b) => a.concat(b));
```
However, these alternatives may not be suitable for all use cases and may have different performance characteristics depending on the specific requirements.

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/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
concat multiple	1000.7 Ops/sec
concat 1	1001.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

concat 1 vs multiple (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concat multiple vs concat 1

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concat multiple

concat 1

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):