Benchmark: spread operator vs push

Tests:

spread operator
var other = [ 1, 2 ] other = [...other, 3]
Push
var other = [ 1, 2 ] other.push(3)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread operator
Push

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 what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is named "spread operator vs push" and its purpose is to compare two different methods for adding elements to an array:

1. The new ES6 spread operator (`...`)
2. The traditional `concat()` method
3. The `push()` method

These three methods are being compared because they serve a similar purpose but have different syntax, performance implications, and usage scenarios.

**Options Compared**

The two alternative approaches being tested are:

1. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, this operator creates a new array by spreading the elements of an existing array.
2. **Concat() Method**: This method creates a new array by concatenating multiple arrays or arrays-like objects together.

**Pros and Cons**

**Spread Operator (ES6)**

Pros:

* More concise and expressive syntax
* Creates a new copy of the original array, which can be beneficial in some scenarios (e.g., avoiding side effects)
* Can be used to create an array from other iterable types (e.g., strings, objects)

Cons:

* May incur higher overhead due to creating a new copy of the array
* Not supported in older browsers or environments

**Concat() Method**

Pros:

* Has been around for longer and is more widely supported across browsers and versions
* Can be used with methods like `join()` and `slice()` to manipulate arrays

Cons:

* Less concise syntax compared to the spread operator
* May incur higher overhead due to creating a new array copy or modifying the original array

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these methods, consider the following factors:

* **Array size**: For small arrays, the spread operator might be slightly faster. For larger arrays, the concat() method might perform better.
* **Memory allocation**: The spread operator creates a new copy of the array, which can lead to increased memory usage for large datasets.
* **Browser support**: If you need to support older browsers or environments, the concat() method is a safer choice.

**Library and Special Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, if the test case used any special JavaScript features like `let` or `const`, it would be good to note that these declarations were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

Now, let's look at some alternative approaches:

**Alternative Approaches**

1. **Array.prototype.fill()**: This method can also be used to add elements to an array.
2. **Array.prototype.splice()**: This method can be used to insert or remove elements from an array.

These alternatives would likely have similar performance characteristics to the spread operator and concat() method, but might offer different trade-offs in terms of syntax and usage scenarios.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements. It's always a good idea to benchmark and experiment with different methods to find the most suitable one for your needs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/93.0.4577.82 Safari/537.36 Edg/93.0.961.52

Browser/OS: Chrome 93 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spread operator	33444446.0 Ops/sec
Push	62778500.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

spread operator vs push (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method and push

Comparing performance of: spread operator vs Push

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

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 26 days ago):