Benchmark: Push vs. Concat - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Push
var arr = [] for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { arr.push(i) }
Concat
var arr = [] for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { arr = arr.concat(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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/601.7.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/9.1.2 Safari/601.7.7

Browser/OS: Safari 9 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	21747.1 Ops/sec
Concat	2.1 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 this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to push elements onto an array:

1. `Push`: The traditional way of adding elements to the end of an array using the `push()` method.
2. `Concat`: Using the `concat()` method to add a single element (in this case, a number) to the end of an array.

**Options being compared**

The two options are:

* `Push`: Adding elements directly to the end of the array using `push()`.
* `Concat`: Concatenating a new array with the existing one using `concat()`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Push:**

Pros:

* Typically faster, as it only requires updating the internal array length.
* Can be more memory-efficient, as it doesn't create a new array.

Cons:

* May not work correctly for arrays that need to have a specific length or structure.
* In older browsers, `push()` might not support sparse arrays (arrays with missing elements).

**Concat:**

Pros:

* Works correctly for all arrays, regardless of length or structure.
* Can be useful when working with arrays that need to be modified dynamically.

Cons:

* Typically slower, as it creates a new array and copies the original data into it.
* Requires more memory, as a new array is created.

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark is likely using a V8 JavaScript engine, which is known for its high performance. However, this might also mean that the results are less representative of other JavaScript engines or older browsers.
* The use of `var` and `i` in the benchmark definitions suggests that the focus is on comparing the basic behavior of `push()` and `concat()`, rather than exploring more advanced topics like array methods.

**Libraries used**

There doesn't appear to be any specific libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the benchmark is using a library or framework that provides some level of support for running JavaScript benchmarks, such as Benchmark.js or micro-benchmarking frameworks.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark uses `var` and `i` (a variable) in the script preparation code, but doesn't use any special JavaScript features like ES6 classes, async/await, or modern array methods. It also uses a relatively old version of Safari 9, which might limit the applicability of the results to other browsers or environments.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in running similar benchmarks for other JavaScript methods or libraries, some alternatives include:

* Benchmark.js: A popular library for running micro-benchmarks and comparing performance.
* micro-benchmarking frameworks like speed-measure or benchmark-stdlib.
* Busted.js: A testing framework that includes built-in support for benchmarking and performance comparison.

Keep in mind that different benchmarks might focus on specific aspects of JavaScript performance, so it's essential to choose the right library or framework depending on your use case.

Related benchmarks:

Push vs. Concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Push vs Concat

Created: 8 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 2 months ago):