Benchmark: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operatorssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ { message: 'A' } ]; var paramss = [ { message: 'B' } ]; var other = [ ...params, ...paramss ];
spread operator
var params = [ { message: 'A' } ]; var paramss = [ { message: 'B' } ]; var other = params.push(...paramss);
jQuery merge
var params = [ { message: 'A' } ]; var paramss = [ { message: 'B' } ]; var other = params.concat(paramss)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator
jQuery merge

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided benchmark, "Array.prototype.concat vs spread operators", is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches: the traditional `concat()` method, the new ES6 spread operator (`...`), and the jQuery `merge` function.

**Test Case Breakdown**

There are three individual test cases:

1. **`Array.prototype.concat`**: This test case uses the traditional `concat()` method to concatenate two arrays.
2. **Spread Operator**: This test case uses the new ES6 spread operator (`...`) to concatenate two arrays.
3. **jQuery merge**: This test case uses the jQuery `merge` function to concatenate two arrays.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of:

* Traditional `concat()` method
* New ES6 spread operator (`...`)
* jQuery `merge` function

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **Traditional `concat()` method**:
	* Pros: widely supported, easy to understand.
	* Cons: can be slow for large arrays due to its iterative nature.
2. **New ES6 spread operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros: concise and expressive, efficient for small arrays.
	* Cons: may not work as expected for very large arrays or complex data structures.
3. **jQuery `merge` function**:
	* Pros: optimized for performance, widely used in jQuery libraries.
	* Cons: specific to jQuery, may require additional setup.

**Library and Syntax Used**

The test case uses the jQuery library for the `merge` function, which is a proprietary function developed by Microsoft.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, consider:

* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` instead of `concat()`.
* Using `Array.prototype.push()` with the spread operator (`...`) for a more concise solution.
* Implementing your own custom concatenation function for optimal performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs and performance characteristics compared to the approaches tested in this benchmark.

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
Array.prototype.concat	39103472.0 Ops/sec
spread operator	70528800.0 Ops/sec
jQuery merge	16497649.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.concat vs spread operatorssssssssssssssssssssssssssss (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs jQuery merge

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

jQuery merge

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):