Benchmark: push vs push.apply vs const push spread vs let push spread vs reassign spread

Tests:

push
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i += 1) { const values = [i, 10000 + i, 100000 + i]; values.forEach(value => { a.push(value); }); } console.log(a);
push.apply
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i += 1) { const values = [i, 10000 + i, 100000 + i]; Array.prototype.push.apply(a, values); } console.log(a);
const push spread
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i += 1) { const values = [i, 10000 + i, 100000 + i]; a.push(...values); } console.log(a);
reassign spread
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i += 1) { const values = [i, 10000 + i, 100000 + i]; a = [...a, ...values]; } console.log(a);
let push spread
let a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i += 1) { const values = [i, 10000 + i, 100000 + i]; a.push(...values); } console.log(a);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
push
push.apply
const push spread
reassign spread
let push spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
push	1393.9 Ops/sec
push.apply	1150.8 Ops/sec
const push spread	1398.5 Ops/sec
reassign spread	294.5 Ops/sec
let push spread	1387.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different approaches to push elements onto an array:

1. `let a = []` and then using `push()`
2. `const a = []` and then using `push()` (with spread syntax)
3. `let a = []` and then using `push(...values)`
4. Reassigning the `a` variable to a new array with spread syntax (`a = [...newArray, ...values]`)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these four approaches:

* **`let a = []` + `push()`**: Using a mutable variable `a` and pushing elements onto it using the `push()` method.
* **`const a = []` + push()`**: Using an immutable variable `a` and pushing elements onto it using the `push()` method. Note that this approach is less efficient because `a` cannot be reassigned.
* **`let a = []` + push(...)`**: Using a mutable variable `a` and pushing elements onto it using the spread syntax (`...values`). This approach is similar to the first one but uses spread syntax instead of `push()`.
* **Reassigning spread** (`a = [...newArray, ...values]`): Reassigning the `a` variable to a new array with spread syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`let a = []` + `push()`**: Pros: Simple and easy to understand. Cons: Less efficient due to repeated reassignments.
2. **`const a = []` + push()`**: Pros: Immutable, which can be beneficial for performance and memory safety. Cons: Less efficient due to constant reassignments.
3. **`let a = []` + push(...)`**: Pros: Similar to the first approach but with spread syntax, which can be more concise. Cons: Still less efficient than reassigning.
4. **Reassigning spread** (`a = [...newArray, ...values]`): Pros: Most efficient due to minimizing the number of assignments and using a single operation to create the new array. Cons: Requires creating a new array on each iteration.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the `push()` method, which is a part of the Array prototype in JavaScript. The spread syntax (`...`) is also used, but it's not specific to any library or feature.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using `unshift()` instead of `push()`
* Using `splice()` instead of `push()`
* Using `concat()` with spread syntax (`[...array].concat(values)`)
* Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a tree

However, the benchmark is already testing some common and efficient approaches, so it's likely that these alternatives wouldn't show significant differences in performance.

Related benchmarks:

push vs push.apply vs const push spread vs let push spread vs reassign spread (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: push vs push.apply vs const push spread vs reassign spread vs let push spread

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

push

push.apply

const push spread

reassign spread

let push spread

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):