Benchmark: concat test for se

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat
spread
push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is not provided, but we can analyze the individual test cases and their scripts.

The three test cases are designed to measure the performance of JavaScript arrays when concatenating elements. The scripts used for each test case are:

1. `const a = [1,2,3]\r\nconst b = a.concat(4)`
2. `const a = [1,2,3]\r\nconst b = [...a, b]`
3. `const a = [1,2,3]\r\nconst b = a.push(4)`

**Options Compared**

These test cases compare the performance of three different approaches to concatenate elements in JavaScript arrays:

1. **Array.prototype.concat()**: This method creates a new array by concatenating all elements from the original array and the given element.
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: This operator is used to create a new array by spreading all elements from an existing array and adding new elements.
3. **`push()` method**: This method adds one or more elements to the end of an array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Array.prototype.concat()**
	* Pros:
		+ Clear and concise syntax
		+ No need to create a new array
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new array, which can be inefficient for large arrays
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive than `concat()`
		+ Does not create a new array (only creates references to existing elements)
	* Cons:
		+ Not all browsers support the spread operator (it was introduced in ECMAScript 2015)
3. **`push()` method**
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient, as it modifies the original array
	* Cons:
		+ Less intuitive and less readable than `concat()`
		+ Does not preserve the original array structure

**Library**

None of these test cases use a specific library.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The test cases do not involve any special JavaScript features or syntax. They are basic examples of how to concatenate arrays using different methods.

**Other Considerations**

When designing benchmarks, consider the following factors:

* **Relevance**: Are the benchmark tests relevant to your specific use case?
* **Consistency**: Are all test cases run consistently and under the same conditions?
* **Scalability**: Can the benchmark handle large datasets or arrays?

For alternatives, you can explore other methods for concatenating arrays, such as using `Array.prototype.map()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`. Alternatively, you could consider using libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide more comprehensive set of utility functions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
concat	8177188.0 Ops/sec
spread	0.0 Ops/sec
push	73713744.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

concat test for se (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concat vs spread vs push

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concat

spread

push

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):