Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat - My test

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using concat function
using template literals

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. Using the `+` operator (also known as string concatenation using the `+` symbol).
2. Using the `concat()` function.
3. Using template literals (`backticks``).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests each option for concatenating four strings: "name", "id", ": 1, ", and ": someItem".

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using the `+` operator**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can lead to performance issues due to string creation and re-assignment on each iteration.
2. **Using the `concat()` function**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than using the `+` operator, as it avoids creating a new string object on each concatenation.
	* Cons: May still incur performance overhead due to function call and argument passing.
3. **Using template literals**:
	* Pros: Provides a concise and readable way to concatenate strings, with additional features like interpolation and escaping.
	* Cons: Can be less efficient than the other two options due to the creation of new objects.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses no external libraries or frameworks, as it's focused on testing basic JavaScript operations.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code. The benchmark only uses standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Benchmark Preparation Code and Test Cases**

The benchmark preparation code simply assigns two variables, `name` and `id`, to string values using the `var` keyword. The test cases then concatenate these strings using each of the three options being tested.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to consider alternative approaches to concatenating strings in JavaScript, you might also look into:

* Using an array or a `StringBuffer` object to build up a string incrementally.
* Utilizing a library like Underscore.js or Lodash for more advanced string manipulation and concatenation techniques.

In terms of performance optimization, the benchmark results suggest that using template literals is not the most efficient approach. However, if readability and conciseness are essential, then template literals might be a suitable choice in this case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	0.6 Ops/sec
using concat function	0.2 Ops/sec
using template literals	0.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat - My test (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

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):