Benchmark: push.apply vs concat

Script Preparation code:

var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

Tests:

push.apply
array1.push.apply(array1, array2)
concat
array1.concat(array2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push.apply
concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. `array1.push.apply(array1, array2)`
2. `array1.concat(array2)`

These two test cases are comparing the performance of two different approaches to concatenate (join) two arrays: using the `push` method with a spread operator (`apply`) and the `concat` method.

**What's being tested?**

The benchmark is testing which approach is faster:

* Using `push.apply(array1, array2)`: This approach involves calling the `push` method on an existing array (`array1`) and passing another array (`array2`) as an argument. The `apply` method allows this operation to be performed in-place.
* Using `array1.concat(array2)`: This approach creates a new array by concatenating two existing arrays.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing these two options:

* In-place modification using `push.apply`
* Creating a new array using `concat`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**In-place modification using `push.apply`**

Pros:

* Can be faster for large arrays since it doesn't create a new array
* Can be more efficient in terms of memory usage

Cons:

* May have side effects on the original array (e.g., modifying its length)
* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully

**Creating a new array using `concat`**

Pros:

* Can be more intuitive and easier to read for some developers
* Doesn't modify the original array

Cons:

* Creates a new array, which can consume additional memory
* May be slower than in-place modification for large arrays

**Library usage**

The benchmark doesn't seem to use any external libraries. The `push` method is a built-in JavaScript method, and the `concat` method is also a built-in method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It's using standard JavaScript methods and syntax.

**Other alternatives**

Other alternative approaches to concatenate arrays include:

* Using the spread operator (`[...array1, ...array2]`) to create a new array
* Using `Array.prototype.push.apply()` with a loop instead of `apply()`

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark.

The benchmark provides some interesting insights into the performance differences between different approaches to concatenating arrays in JavaScript. By testing both in-place modification and creating a new array, we can gain a better understanding of which approach is faster and more efficient for specific use cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.130 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
push.apply	3351086.0 Ops/sec
concat	4.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

push.apply vs concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push.apply vs concat

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push.apply

concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):