Benchmark: spread vs concat vs unshift

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1,2,3];

Tests:

arrayUnshift
array.unshift(0);
arrayConcat
array = array.concat([0])
arraySpread
array = [0, ...array]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrayUnshift
arrayConcat
arraySpread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition provides basic information about the test, including:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "spread vs concat vs unshift".
* `Description`: A brief description of the test, which is also "spread vs concat vs unshift". This suggests that the test is comparing the performance of three different methods for inserting an element into an array: `unshift`, `concat`, and spread syntax (`...`).
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that prepares a sample array before running the benchmark. In this case, the array is initialized with values `[1, 2, 3]`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating that no HTML preparation code is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases define individual benchmarks to be compared:

1. **`arrayUnshift`**: This benchmark tests the performance of inserting an element into the array using the `unshift` method.
2. **`arrayConcat`**: This benchmark tests the performance of inserting an element into the array using the `concat` method.
3. **`arraySpread`**: This benchmark tests the performance of inserting an element into the array using the spread syntax (`...`).

**Library and Special Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in the provided code snippets.

However, there is a special feature being tested: the use of spread syntax (`...`) for array creation and insertion. The spread syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a way to create new arrays from existing ones or other iterable objects.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **`unshift`**: This method modifies the original array by adding elements to the beginning. It has the advantage of being an in-place operation, but it also requires shifting all existing elements, which can lead to performance issues for large arrays.
* **`concat`**: This method creates a new array and returns a reference to it. It's generally faster than `unshift`, but it also creates a new object, which can be memory-intensive.
* **`spread syntax (`...`)** : This method creates a new array by spreading the elements of an existing array. It's often considered the most efficient way to create arrays, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new object or shifting elements.

**Other Alternatives**

If `unshift` and `concat` were not available, other alternatives might include:

* Creating a new array using the `Array.prototype.slice()` method.
* Using a library like Lodash's `cloneDeep()` function to create a deep copy of the original array.
* Using a custom implementation that uses bitwise operations or pointer arithmetic to insert elements into the array.

However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient and more complex than the original approaches being tested.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; SM-G965F) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.101 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 75 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrayUnshift	14243.5 Ops/sec
arrayConcat	386.4 Ops/sec
arraySpread	92.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

spread vs concat vs unshift (version: 0)

spread vs concat vs unshift

Comparing performance of: arrayUnshift vs arrayConcat vs arraySpread

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrayUnshift

arrayConcat

arraySpread

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):