Benchmark: zk test spread vs push 3

Tests:

spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [...params, {id: 123} ]
Push
var other = [ "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7 ].push({id: 123});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread operator
Push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches to concatenate and push elements onto an array:

1. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: Introduced in ES6, this operator allows you to extract a subset of elements from an array or object.
2. **Traditional `concat()` method**: This is the older way of concatenating arrays using the `+` operator or the `concat()` function.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **Push vs Spread Operator**: The test creates a large array `params` and then uses either the spread operator to add an object to it (`[...params, {id: 123}]`) or the traditional `push()` method (`params.push({id: 123})`).
* **Raw UA String, Browser, Device Platform, Operating System**: The test collects metadata about the browser, device platform, operating system, and raw UA string of the test runner.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Spread Operator**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable code (in many cases)
		+ Can be more efficient than `push()` for large arrays
	* Cons:
		+ May not work as expected in older browsers or environments that don't support ES6 features
2. **Traditional `concat()` method**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across browsers and environments
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to slower performance compared to the spread operator for large arrays

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned or used.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here. Both approaches use standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a simple array concatenation test case to focus on the performance difference between the spread operator and the traditional `concat()` method.
* The results are likely intended for developers who want to know which approach is faster in their specific use cases.

**Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks, you might consider testing:

1. Other JavaScript features, such as `Array.prototype.some()`, `Array.prototype.find()`, or `Arrow functions`.
2. Different array manipulation techniques, like using `splice()` instead of `push()`.
3. Performance differences between different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey).

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches may vary depending on the specific use case and browser/ environment.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spread operator	14550819.0 Ops/sec
Push	20127910.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

zk test spread vs push 3 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method and push

Comparing performance of: spread operator vs Push

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread operator

Push

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):