Benchmark: Concat vs Flat 2

Tests:

Concat
Array.from({ length: 10000 }, () => ['a','b','c']).reduce((t, acc) => t.concat(acc))
Flat
Array.from({ length: 10000 }, () => ['a','b','c']).flat()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Concat
Flat

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 benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition and Test Cases**

The test cases are designed to compare two approaches for flattening an array of arrays: `concat` and `flat`. The test case definitions use JavaScript syntax, which is typical for this type of benchmarking.

In the first test case (`Concat`), an array of 10,000 elements is created using `Array.from`, where each element is an array containing three strings (`'a'`, `'b'`, and `'c'`). The resulting array is then reduced using the `concat` method to concatenate all inner arrays. This approach creates a new array with all the concatenated strings.

In the second test case (`Flat`), the same array of 10,000 elements is created, but instead of concatenating the inner arrays using `concat`, it uses the `flat` method to flatten the array directly into a single-level array.

**Pros and Cons**

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

* **Concat**: Pros:
	+ Easy to understand and implement.
	+ Works with older browsers that may not support `flat`.
Cons:
	+ Creates a new array, which can lead to performance issues if the input size is large.
	+ May cause unnecessary allocations on the heap.
* **Flat**: Pros:
	+ More efficient than `concat` since it avoids creating an intermediate array and directly modifies the original array.
	+ Supports older browsers that may not support `flat`.
Cons:
	+ Can be more difficult to understand and implement, especially for developers who are not familiar with this method.
	+ May have a slight performance overhead due to the method's complexity.

**Library Used**

In both test cases, no libraries or frameworks are explicitly mentioned. However, it is assumed that the `Array.from` method and possibly other modern JavaScript features (like ES6 arrow functions) are available.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark makes use of two special JS features/syntax:

*   **ES6 Arrow Functions**: The test cases use arrow functions (`() => ['a','b','c']`) to create the initial array of 10,000 elements.
*   **Modern Array Methods**: The `Array.from` method and the `reduce` method are used in the test case definitions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives or more specialized benchmarks, here are a few options:

*   **Benchmarking frameworks:** Libraries like BenchmarkJS or Microbenchmark can provide more structured benchmarking capabilities.
*   **Specific use cases**: You could create benchmarks that focus on specific scenarios, such as web performance optimization, mobile app development, or server-side programming.
*   **Edge cases**: Consider creating benchmarks for edge cases, such as handling large data sets or dealing with network latency.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more setup and configuration compared to a simple JSON-based benchmark like the one provided.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Concat	13.9 Ops/sec
Flat	2911.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Concat vs Flat 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Concat vs Flat

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Concat

Flat

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):