Benchmark: concat test temp

Tests:

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

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON contains two benchmark definitions:

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

These definitions describe three different tests:

* **concat**: Tests the `concat` method of arrays.
* **spread**: Tests the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by copying an existing array's elements and adding new ones.
* **push**: Tests the `push` method of arrays, which adds one or more elements to the end of an array.

**Options Compared**

In each test case:

* The initial array `a` is created with three elements: `[1, 2, 3]`.
* A second operation is performed on the array:
	+ **concat**: Adds a new element `4` to the end of the array using the `concat` method.
	+ **spread**: Creates a new array by copying the original array's elements and adding a new element `4` to the resulting array.
	+ **push**: Adds the single element `4` to the end of the original array using the `push` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages:

* **concat**: This method is straightforward but can be inefficient if the initial array is large, as it creates a new array by concatenating two arrays. On the other hand, it's easy to understand and implement.
* **spread**: This method is more efficient than `concat` because it avoids creating an intermediate array. However, it requires knowledge of the spread operator, which can be unfamiliar to some developers.
* **push**: This method modifies the original array in place, making it potentially faster than the other two approaches for large datasets. However, it may not be as intuitive or predictable as the other methods.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly use a library. The `concat` method is part of the built-in JavaScript API, while the `push` and spread operators are also native to JavaScript.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features used in these benchmark definitions. The syntax is standard ECMAScript 2020-compliant JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, you could consider:

* Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a stack.
* Implementing the `concat` and `push` methods from scratch using iteration or recursion.
* Testing other array methods, such as `slice`, `filter`, or `map`.
* Comparing performance with different programming languages or frameworks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the nature of the benchmark, requiring significant modifications to the benchmark definitions and implementation.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
concat	6628443.0 Ops/sec
spread	34538744.0 Ops/sec
push	51724836.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

concat test temp (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):