Benchmark: Array concat vs spread operator vs push v2

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var one = [ 'one', 'two', 'three' ]; var two = [ 'four', 'five', 'six' ]; var three = one.concat(two);
spread operator
var one = [ 'one', 'two', 'three' ]; var two = [ 'four', 'five', 'six' ]; var three = [ ...one, ...two ];
Push
var one = [ 'one', 'two', 'three' ]; var two = [ 'four', 'five', 'six' ]; var three = one.push(...two);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator
Push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to concatenate two arrays in JavaScript:

1. **`concat()` method**: The traditional way of concatenating arrays using the `concat()` method.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**: The new ES6 spread operator, which allows for more concise and expressive array creation.
3. **`push()` method with spread syntax**: A variation of the previous approach that uses the spread operator within the `push()` method.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches under different conditions:

* The first test case (`Array.prototype.concat`) tests the traditional concatenation using the `concat()` method.
* The second test case (`spread operator`) tests the new ES6 spread operator approach.
* The third test case (`Push`) tests a variation that uses the spread operator within the `push()` method.

**Pros and Cons:**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **`concat()` method**:
	* Pros: Widely supported, easy to understand, and well-documented.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other approaches due to its overhead.
2. **Spread operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive, can reduce boilerplate code.
	* Cons: May require additional syntax changes for some developers.
3. **`push()` method with spread syntax**:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of both approaches (concise code and traditional `concat()` method).
	* Cons: Requires a specific syntax that may not be immediately clear to all developers.

**Library and special JS features used:**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features mentioned in the benchmark definition. The test cases only rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few:

* **`Array.prototype.push()` with array slicing**: You can concatenate arrays by creating a new array and pushing elements onto it using `push()`, followed by slicing the resulting array. (e.g., `var three = [ ...one, ...two ];`)
* **`Array.prototype.set()`** (older browsers only): Although not widely supported, some older browsers have an implementation of `set()` that can be used to concatenate arrays.

In summary, the benchmark provides a useful comparison of different approaches for concatenating arrays in JavaScript. The spread operator approach is generally considered the most concise and efficient way, while traditional `concat()` method approaches may require additional overhead.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.concat	3603881.5 Ops/sec
spread operator	13573422.0 Ops/sec
Push	12792379.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array concat vs spread operator vs push v2 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method and push

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs Push

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

Push

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):