Benchmark: Teste array concat push for loop

Script Preparation code:

var num1 = [1, 2, 3];
var num2 = [4, 5, 6];
var num3 = [7, 8, 9];

Tests:

Push
Array.prototype.push.apply(num1, num2);
Concat
for (var i=0; i<num2.length; i++) {num1.push(num2[i]);}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of two JavaScript operations: `Array.prototype.push.apply()` and a for loop-based approach. The benchmark definition includes:

1. **`Array.prototype.push.apply(num1, num2);`**: This operation uses the `apply()` method to apply the `push()` method to each element in `num1` using `num2` as the array.
2. **`for (var i=0; i<num2.length; i++) {num1.push(num2[i]);}`**: This is a traditional for loop-based approach, where we iterate through each element of `num2` and push it onto `num1`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two different approaches to achieve the same result:

1. **`Array.prototype.push.apply()`**: A more concise and efficient way to perform array operations.
2. **For Loop-Based Approach**: A traditional approach using a for loop to iterate through each element.

**Pros and Cons**

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

1. **`Array.prototype.push.apply()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Can be more efficient, as it avoids unnecessary iterations.
	* Cons:
		+ Might not be supported in older browsers or environments.
2. **For Loop-Based Approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support (even older versions).
		+ Allows for better control over the iteration process.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code, which can lead to readability issues.

**Library/Feature**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features. They are purely focused on testing the performance of basic JavaScript operations.

**Device and Browser**

The latest benchmark result indicates that both tests were run on a Chrome 67 browser on a Windows desktop device, with an execution rate of approximately 2 million executions per second for each test.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizations, here are some options:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.concat()`**: Another way to concatenate arrays in JavaScript.
2. **ES6's Array.prototype.flat()` and `Array.prototype.flatMap()`: More modern methods for flattening arrays, which might be more efficient in certain scenarios.
3. **Profiling and Optimization Techniques**: Consider using profiling tools (e.g., Chrome DevTools) to identify performance bottlenecks in your code and apply optimizations accordingly.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides a clear comparison between two approaches to performing array concatenation operations in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can make informed decisions about which method to use in your own projects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	2038560.2 Ops/sec
Concat	1000660.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Teste array concat push for loop (version: 0)

Testando perfoamnce de array concat e push

Comparing performance of: Push vs Concat

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):