Benchmark: push vs concat 1212

Tests:

push
const a = [1, 2, 3] const b = [3, 4, 5] a.push(...b)
concat
const a = [1, 2, 3] const b = [3, 4, 5] a.concat(b)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
concat

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 what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: `push` and `concat`. Each test case consists of a simple JavaScript expression that creates two arrays, `a` and `b`, and then either uses the `push` method to add elements from `b` to `a`, or the `concat` method to merge `a` and `b`.

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. **Push**: Using the `push` method with the spread operator (`...`) to add elements from `b` to `a`.
2. **Concat**: Using the `concat` method to merge `a` and `b`.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **Push:**
	+ Pros:
		- Efficient, as it modifies the original array in place.
		- Can be faster due to the optimized implementation of `push`.
	+ Cons:
		- May modify the original array, which can lead to unexpected side effects if not expected.
		- Does not create a new array, but instead adds elements to the existing one.
* **Concat:**
	+ Pros:
		- Creates a new array and returns it, avoiding potential side effects on the original array.
		- Can be useful when working with immutable data structures or when you want to ensure that the original array is not modified.
	+ Cons:
		- May create unnecessary memory allocations if `a` is large and `b` is small.
		- The implementation of `concat` may not be optimized as well as `push`.

**Library usage**

There doesn't seem to be any explicit library usage in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark may use some internal libraries or functions provided by JavaScript engines or browsers.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to write a similar benchmark for different methods of array concatenation (e.g., `set`, `join`, etc.), you could add more test cases. Additionally, if you're interested in exploring other aspects of JavaScript performance, such as:

* Looping performance: You could create benchmarks that compare the performance of different looping constructs, like `for` loops, `forEach` loops, or `map`/`filter`.
* Object creation and manipulation: Benchmarks can be created to compare the performance of creating objects using different constructors (e.g., `Object.create()`, `Object.assign()`) or methods (e.g., `Object.assign()` vs. array concatenation).
* Function call overhead: You could write benchmarks that measure the performance of calling functions with varying numbers of arguments, using different optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization).

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions or if you'd like more information on these alternatives!

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
push	22381704.0 Ops/sec
concat	7925899.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

push vs concat 1212 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs concat

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

concat

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):