Benchmark: Concatinating VS toString

Script Preparation code:

var myString = 'foo bar zoo loo';
var myNumber = 42;

Tests:

toString from string
var myNewStringFromString = myString.toString();
toString from number
var myNewStringFromNumber = myNumber.toString();
concat from string
var myNewStringFromString = myString + '';
concat from number
var myNewStringFromNumber = myNumber + '';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString from string
toString from number
concat from string
concat from number

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition in this case represents a simple JavaScript operation: concatenating or converting strings to numbers using two different approaches:

1. `toString()`: A built-in method that converts a value (e.g., a string) to its string representation.
2. Concatenation (`+``): The traditional way of joining two values together by adding them as strings.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options for each operation:

* Using the `toString()` method
* Using concatenation (`+``)

These two approaches have different performance characteristics and pros and cons:

**`toString()` Method:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Less prone to errors, as it handles conversion automatically

Cons:

* May be slower than concatenation for large strings or numbers
* Can lead to additional overhead due to the method call and parameter passing

**Concatenation (`+``):**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient for large strings or numbers
* Allows direct control over string formatting and manipulation

Cons:

* More verbose code
* Prone to errors, especially when dealing with edge cases (e.g., null or undefined values)

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions. They only utilize standard JavaScript operators and built-in methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare different string concatenation approaches, you could also consider:

* Using `+=` instead of concatenation (`+``)
* Using a template literal (e.g., `template literals: "foo ${bar}"`) for more concise string formatting
* Using a library like `lodash.string` for more advanced string manipulation and concatenation options

However, in this specific benchmark definition, the focus is on comparing the performance of `toString()` and concatenation (`+``)` methods.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provides two variables:

* `myString`: A sample string value
* `myNumber`: A sample number value

These variables are used to create test cases for both operations (concatenation and conversion using `toString()`).

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case represents a single execution of one of the two approaches (concatenation or `toString()`) on either the string (`myString`) or number (`myNumber`) value.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString from string	11127962.0 Ops/sec
toString from number	10748150.0 Ops/sec
concat from string	11446328.0 Ops/sec
concat from number	11983025.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Concatinating VS toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString from string vs toString from number vs concat from string vs concat from number

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString from string

toString from number

concat from string

concat from number

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):