Benchmark: string concat using different approaches

Script Preparation code:

var Type1 = class Type1 {
	constructor(name, namespace) {
		this.name = name;
  		this.namespace = namespace;
	}

	get fullName() {
		return this.namespace + '.' + this.name; 
	}

	equalsTo(other) {
		this.fullName === other.fullName; 
    }

	static one = new Type1('namespace', 'one');
	static another = new Type1('namespace', 'another');
}

var Type2 = class Type2 {
	constructor(name, namespace) {
		this.name = name;
  		this.namespace = namespace;
	}

	get fullName() {
		return `${this.namespace}.${this.name}`; 
	}

	equalsTo(other) {
		this.fullName === other.fullName; 
    }

	static one = new Type2('namespace', 'one');
	static another = new Type2('namespace', 'another');
}

var Type3 = class Type3 {
	constructor(name, namespace) {
		this.name = name;
  		this.namespace = namespace;
	}

	get fullName() {
		return [this.namespace,'.',this.name].join(''); 
	}

	equalsTo(other) {
		this.fullName === other.fullName; 
    }

	static one = new Type3('namespace', 'one');
	static another = new Type3('namespace', 'another');
}

var Type4 = class Type4 {
	constructor(name, namespace) {
		this.name = name;
  		this.namespace = namespace;
		this.fullName = namespace + '.' + name;
	}

	equalsTo(other) {
		this.fullName === other.fullName; 
    }

	static one = new Type4('namespace', 'one');
	static another = new Type4('namespace', 'another');
}

Tests:

concat
Type1.one.equalsTo(Type1.another);
template string
Type2.one.equalsTo(Type2.another);
array join
Type3.one.equalsTo(Type3.another);
precalculated string
Type4.one.equalsTo(Type4.another);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat
template string
array join
precalculated string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
concat	8883519.0 Ops/sec
template string	8254997.5 Ops/sec
array join	4566534.0 Ops/sec
precalculated string	9627300.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares four different approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. `Type1`: uses a class with a `fullName` property and an `equalsTo` method.
2. `Type2`: uses template literals to concatenate strings.
3. `Type3`: uses the `join()` method on an array.
4. `Type4`: precalculates the full name as a property of the object.

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined in the "Individual test cases" section, which contains four benchmark definitions:

1. `concat` (using `equalsTo` method with `Type1`)
2. `template string` (using template literals with `Type2`)
3. `array join` (using `join()` method on an array with `Type3`)
4. `precalculated string` (using precalculating the full name as a property with `Type4`)

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* `Type1` vs. `Template Literals` (`Type2`) vs. `Array Join` (`Type3`) vs. `Precalculated String` (`Type4`)
* Each approach has different string concatenation strategies:
	+ `equalsTo` method ( `Type1` ) uses a simple equality check.
	+ Template literals ( `Type2` ) provide a more readable and concise way to concatenate strings.
	+ Array join ( `Type3` ) uses the `join()` method, which can be less efficient than other approaches.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `equalsTo` method (`Type1`):
	+ Pros: simple, widely supported.
	+ Cons: may lead to unnecessary string allocations and comparisons.
* Template literals (`Type2`):
	+ Pros: readable, concise, efficient.
	+ Cons: may not be as efficient for very large strings or complex concatenations.
* Array join (`Type3`):
	+ Pros: can handle complex concatenations and large strings efficiently.
	+ Cons: may lead to unnecessary string allocations and method calls.

**Library/Feature Used**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use a specific JavaScript library. However, template literals are a built-in feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals (`Type2`) use a special syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which allows for more readable and concise string concatenation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, you can consider:

* Using the `+` operator for string concatenation.
* Using the `String.prototype.concat()` method.
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for string manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the approaches being tested in the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

string concat using different approaches (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concat vs template string vs array join vs precalculated string

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concat

template string

array join

precalculated string

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):