Benchmark: map-push vs concat vs spread-updated

Script Preparation code:

var result = ['1', '2', '3', '4', '5'];
var response = ['6', '7', '8'];

Tests:

map-push
response.map((num) => result.push(num));
concat
result.concat(response);
spread
[...result, ...response]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map-push
concat
spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 8.0.0; WAS-LX1A) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 107 on Android 8.0.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map-push	386693.9 Ops/sec
concat	28.9 Ops/sec
spread	4.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasurThat.net, which compares the performance of three different approaches for concatenating arrays: `map-push`, `concat`, and `spread`. The benchmark is designed to test the execution speed of each approach.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Map-Push**: This approach uses the `push()` method in combination with the `map()` function to concatenate two arrays.
2. **Concat**: This approach uses the `concat()` method to concatenate two arrays.
3. **Spread**: This approach uses the spread operator (`[...array, ...anotherArray]`) to concatenate two arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Map-Push**
	* Pros: Can be more efficient for large arrays since it modifies the original array in place.
	* Cons: Can lead to performance issues if the original array is very large or if the `push()` method is slow.
2. **Concat**
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand, with no side effects on the original array.
	* Cons: Creates a new array, which can be slower than modifying an existing array in place.
3. **Spread**
	* Pros: Modern and concise syntax, with no side effects on the original arrays.
	* Cons: Creates two new arrays (one for each `...`), which can be slower than modifying an existing array in place.

**Library Used**

None, as this benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The `map()` and `push()` functions are examples of functional programming concepts. The spread operator (`[...array, ...anotherArray]`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2018.

**Considerations**

When choosing an approach for concatenating arrays, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If you're working with large arrays or need to concatenate many small arrays, `map-push` might be faster. For smaller arrays or when simplicity matters, `concat` or `spread` might be a better choice.
* Code readability and maintainability: `concat` is often the most readable approach, while `map-push` can be less intuitive for some developers.

**Other Alternatives**

Besides the three approaches mentioned above, other ways to concatenate arrays include:

* Using the `reduce()` function with an accumulator: `[...array1.reduce((acc, val) => [...acc, val], [])]`
* Using a loop with concatenation: `var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { result.push(array[i]); }`
* Using the `Array.prototype.join()` method with an empty string separator: `[...array].join('')`

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and code readability compared to the original three approaches.

Related benchmarks:

map-push vs concat vs spread-updated (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map-push vs concat vs spread

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map-push

concat

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):