Benchmark: Push vs Spread stuff2

Tests:

Using the spread operator
let x = [1,2]; x = [...x, 3]; x = [...x, 4];
Push
const x = [1,2]; x.push(3) x.push(4);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using the spread operator
Push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.157 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using the spread operator	1012878.5 Ops/sec
Push	18690126.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining what is tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "Push vs Spread stuff2", compares two approaches to adding elements to an array: using the `push` method and the spread operator (`...`). The test case consists of a single script preparation code snippet that initializes an array `x` with elements 1 and 2. Then, it adds 3 and 4 to the array using both methods.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Push**: This approach uses the `push` method to add one or more elements to the end of an array.
```javascript
x.push(3);
x.push(4);
```
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: This approach uses the spread operator to create a new array by copying the existing array and adding one or more elements to it.
```javascript
x = [...x, 3];
x = [...x, 4];
```

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages:

* **Push**:
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster and more efficient than using the spread operator.
		- Can be more cache-friendly because it modifies the original array in place.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as readable or intuitive for some developers, especially those familiar with functional programming.
* **Spread Operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive than using `push`.
		- Can be more readable and easier to understand, especially in functional programming contexts.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than using `push` due to the overhead of creating a new array.
		- Can lead to more memory allocations if not used carefully.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines often use various optimizations and heuristics under the hood, which can affect the performance of both approaches.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's included in standard ES5/ES6 implementations. If you were to modify the benchmark to test a specific feature like async/await, generators, or Web Workers, those would need to be added explicitly to the script preparation code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* **Concatenation**: Using the `concat` method to concatenate arrays instead of using the spread operator.
```javascript
x = x.concat(3);
x = x.concat(4);
```
* **Array.prototype.slice()**: Using `slice()` to create a new array with a subset of elements and then concatenating it.
```javascript
const slicedX = x.slice();
slicedX.push(3);
slicedX.push(4);
x = [...slicedX];
```
These alternatives would add more complexity and potential performance overhead compared to the original `push` and spread operator approaches.

Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript code can be complex, as it depends on various factors like engine optimizations, CPU architecture, memory allocation strategies, and other platform-specific factors.

Related benchmarks:

Push vs Spread stuff2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Using the spread operator vs Push

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Using the spread operator

Push

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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