Benchmark: mybenchmark12331313112312321131233

Tests:

1
const forum = "technopat"; const FILTERS = [ "User", "Avatar", "Signature", ]; // Additional parameter const additionalParameter = "AnotherParameter"; function f(params) { return true; } const settings = f([...FILTERS.map(value => `${forum}${value}`), additionalParameter]);
2
const forum = "technopat"; const FILTERS = [ "User", "Avatar", "Signature", ]; // Additional parameter const additionalParameter = "AnotherParameter"; function f(params) { return true; } const settings = f(FILTERS.map(value => `${forum}${value}`).concat(additionalParameter));
3
const forum = "technopat"; const FILTERS = [ "User", "Avatar", "Signature", ]; // Additional parameter const additionalParameter = "AnotherParameter"; function f(params) { return true; } const settings = f(FILTERS.map(value => `${forum}${value}`).push(additionalParameter));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests three different approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript using the `FILTERS` array. The benchmark is defined by a JSON object that contains the script preparation code, HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case), and no test name.

**Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases, each with its own `Benchmark Definition`. Here's what's happening in each test case:

1. **Test Case 1**
```javascript
const forum = "technopat";
const FILTERS = ["User", "Avatar", "Signature"];
// Additional parameter
const additionalParameter = "AnotherParameter";

function f(params) {
  return true;
}

const settings = f([...FILTERS.map(value => `${forum}${value}`), additionalParameter]);
```
In this test case, the `FILTERS` array is mapped to create a new array of concatenated strings using template literals. The resulting array is then passed to the `f` function, which returns `true`.

2. **Test Case 2**
```javascript
const forum = "technopat";
const FILTERS = ["User", "Avatar", "Signature"];
// Additional parameter
const additionalParameter = "AnotherParameter";

function f(params) {
  return true;
}

const settings = f(FILTERS.map(value => `${forum}${value}`).concat(additionalParameter));
```
In this test case, the `FILTERS` array is mapped to create a new array of concatenated strings using template literals. The resulting array is then concatenated with another value (`additionalParameter`) using the `concat()` method.

3. **Test Case 3**
```javascript
const forum = "technopat";
const FILTERS = ["User", "Avatar", "Signature"];
// Additional parameter
const additionalParameter = "AnotherParameter";

function f(params) {
  return true;
}

const settings = f(FILTERS.map(value => `${forum}${value}`).push(additionalParameter));
```
In this test case, the `FILTERS` array is mapped to create a new array of concatenated strings using template literals. The resulting array is then pushed with another value (`additionalParameter`) using the `push()` method.

**Comparison**

The three test cases are compared in terms of their performance, specifically the number of executions per second.

* **Test Case 1**: Uses `Array.prototype.map()`, which returns a new array.
* **Test Case 2**: Uses `Array.prototype.concat()`, which concatenates two arrays and returns a new array.
* **Test Case 3**: Uses `Array.prototype.push()`, which adds an element to the end of the array.

**Pros/Cons**

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

1. **Test Case 1 (Array.prototype.map())**
	* Pros: More concise, easy to read.
	* Cons: May incur additional memory allocations due to creating a new array.
2. **Test Case 2 (Array.prototype.concat())**
	* Pros: Simple and efficient, but can be slower than `map()` since it returns a new array.
	* Cons: Less readable than `map()`, as it's more explicit about concatenating arrays.
3. **Test Case 3 (Array.prototype.push())**
	* Pros: Fastest performance, as it modifies the existing array.
	* Cons: Less readable than other approaches, as it's less explicit about modifying an array.

**Library and Special Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, it does use some special JavaScript features:

* **Template literals**: Used to create concatenated strings using the `${forum}${value}` syntax.
* **Arrow functions**: Used to define the `f` function with a concise syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript, here are a few options:

1. **String.prototype.join()**: This method joins an array of strings into a single string using a separator. It's often more efficient than concatenating arrays or strings individually.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This method reduces an array to a single value by applying a callback function to each element.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	26813758.0 Ops/sec
2	8786786.0 Ops/sec
3	33009076.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

mybenchmark12331313112312321131233 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

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):