Benchmark: string concat speed

Script Preparation code:

var s;

Tests:

plus
s = "a"+" b" + " " + "cdefgh " + "test" + " "+"123";
join
s = ["a","b","cdefgh","test","123"].join(" ");
fn
function join(){ for(var i=0, len=arguments.length,s;i<len;i++){ s += arguments[i] + " "; } } join("a","b","cdefgh","test","123");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
plus
join
fn

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark and its options in detail.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run tests to compare the performance of different approaches. The benchmark is focused on string concatenation.

The `Script Preparation Code` section provides an initial value for the variable `s`, which will be used as a baseline for subsequent measurements.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **plus**: This test case uses simple string concatenation: `s = "a" + "b" + " " + "cdefgh" + "test" + " " + "123";`. It measures the performance of this basic approach.
2. **join**: This test case uses the built-in `Array.prototype.join()` method to concatenate strings: `[“a”, “b”, “cdefgh”, “test”, “123”].join(“ ”);`. It compares the performance of this method with the basic approach.
3. **fn**: This test case defines a custom function `join` that concatenates strings using a loop: `function join(){for(var i=0, len=arguments.length,s;i<len;i++)s += arguments[i] + " ";}\njoin("a","b","cdefgh","test","123");`. It measures the performance of this custom implementation.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases compare different approaches to string concatenation:

* **Basic Approach**: `s = "a" + "b" + " " + "cdefgh" + "test" + " " + "123";`
* **Built-in `join()` Method**: `[“a”, “b”, “cdefgh”, “test”, “123”].join(“ ”);`
* **Custom Implementation (`fn` function)**: `function join(){for(var i=0, len=arguments.length,s;i<len;i++)s += arguments[i] + " ";}\njoin("a","b","cdefgh","test","123");`

**Pros and Cons**

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

* **Basic Approach**:
	+ Pros: Simple, intuitive, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slow for large strings due to repeated concatenations.
* **Built-in `join()` Method**:
	+ Pros: Efficient for large arrays of strings.
	+ Cons: Not as intuitive as the basic approach, may not work with non-array inputs.
* **Custom Implementation (`fn` function)**:
	+ Pros: Can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements.
	+ Cons: More complex and less widely supported than the built-in `join()` method.

**Library**

The `Array.prototype.join()` method uses the `Array.prototype` object, which is a part of the JavaScript standard library. The `join()` method is a built-in function that concatenates the elements of an array into a single string.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

For measuring performance and comparing different approaches, other alternatives include:

* Google Benchmark: A high-performance benchmarking library for JavaScript.
* Microbenchmark: A lightweight benchmarking library for Node.js and browser environments.
* Benchmark.js: A popular benchmarking library for JavaScript that supports various benchmarking algorithms.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.62 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
plus	5520102.5 Ops/sec
join	1675611.5 Ops/sec
fn	2493555.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string concat speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: plus vs join vs fn

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

plus

join

fn

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):