Benchmark: simple spread vs concat benchmark

Tests:

concate
const array1 = [1, 2, 3]; const concated = array1.concat([4, 5, 6]);
spread
const array1 = [1, 2, 3]; const spreaded = [ ...array1, ...[4, 5, 6], ];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concate
spread

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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON defines a simple benchmark that compares the performance of two ways to concatenate arrays in JavaScript: using the `concat` method and using the spread operator (`...`). The benchmark has no specific script preparation code or HTML preparation code, which means it only focuses on the JavaScript aspect of the test.

**Test Cases:**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **concate**: This test case defines a JavaScript array `array1` with three elements and then concatenates another array `[4, 5, 6]` to it using the `concat` method.
2. **spread**: This test case defines a JavaScript array `array1` with three elements and then uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate an additional array `[4, 5, 6]` to it.

**What is being tested:**

The benchmark is testing the performance difference between using the `concat` method and the spread operator for concatenating arrays in JavaScript. Specifically, it's measuring:

* How fast each approach can execute.
* The execution speed of each test case on different browsers (not explicitly listed but inferred from the provided raw UA string).

**Options compared:**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **`concat` method**: This is a built-in JavaScript array method that concatenates one or more arrays and returns a new array with the concatenated elements.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**: This is a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows creating a new array by spreading elements from existing arrays.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`concat` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across different browsers.
		+ Can handle large datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new array, which can lead to increased memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable syntax.
		+ Avoids creating a new array, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported by older browsers or engines.

**Other considerations:**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your use case:

* If you need to handle large datasets and prioritize performance, the `concat` method might be a better choice.
* If you prefer a more concise syntax and don't mind slight performance trade-offs, the spread operator is a good option.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, there are no libraries used explicitly. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may include additional JavaScript libraries or frameworks when executed, which could potentially affect the benchmark results.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the spread operator.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_2) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.0.4 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 13 on Mac OS X 10.15.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
concate	12281173.0 Ops/sec
spread	55610668.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

simple spread vs concat benchmark (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concate vs spread

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concate

spread

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):