Benchmark: Concat vs Slice!!

Tests:

Array.prototype.slice
var other = [ 1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2 ].slice();
Array.prototype.concat
var other = [].concat([ 1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2,1, 2, ]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.slice
Array.prototype.concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two JavaScript methods: `Array.prototype.slice()` and `Array.prototype.concat()`. These methods are used to manipulate arrays in JavaScript.

**Options compared**

The test is comparing the performance of:

1. `Array.prototype.slice()`: This method creates a shallow copy of a portion of an array, starting from the specified start index and ending at the specified end index.
2. `Array.prototype.concat()`: This method creates a new array by concatenating two or more arrays.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **`Array.prototype.slice()`**:
	* Pros: More efficient in terms of memory usage, as it only copies the necessary elements from the original array.
	* Cons: May be slower than `concat()` because it requires multiple iterations over the array to create the slice.
2. **`Array.prototype.concat()`**:
	* Pros: Can be faster for large arrays, as it avoids the overhead of slicing and copying individual elements.
	* Cons: More memory-intensive, as it creates a new array that contains all the elements from the original arrays.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `Array.prototype` is an object that provides methods for manipulating arrays, which are part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None mentioned explicitly, but it's worth noting that these methods have been part of JavaScript for a long time and are widely supported across various browsers and environments.

**Other alternatives**

In addition to `Array.prototype.slice()` and `concat()`, other approaches might include:

1. Using the spread operator (`[...]`) or `Destructuring` to create new arrays.
2. Utilizing libraries like Lodash (which provides a `slice()` function) or Ramda (which provides a `sliceRight()` function).
3. Implementing custom looping constructs, such as using `for...of` loops or recursive functions.

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.slice	118789408.0 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.concat	61260948.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Concat vs Slice!! (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.slice vs Array.prototype.concat

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.slice

Array.prototype.concat

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):