Benchmark: stringify by concatenating or regex replacement or array joining

Script Preparation code:

window.input = 'This is an aexample of a templated literal supported in modern JavaScript: `test ${test}`.'

window.stringifyByConcatWithSwitch = str => {
  let res = '';
  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {
    let chr = str.charAt(i);
    switch (chr) {
      case '\\': chr = '\\\\'; break
      case '`':  chr = '\\`';  break
      case '$':  chr = '\\$';  break
    }
    res += chr
  }
  return `\`${res}\``
}

window.stringifyByRegex = str => str.replace(/\\|`|\$(?={)/g, match => `\\${match}`)

window.stringifyByJoin = str => {
  let res = [];
  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {
    let chr = str.charAt(i)
    switch (chr) {
      case '\\': chr = '\\\\'; break
      case '`':  chr = '\\`';  break
      case '$':  chr = '\\$';  break
    }
    res.push(chr)
  }
  return `\`${res.join()}\``
}

const escaped = {
  '\\': '\\\\',
  '`':  '\\`',
  '$':  '\\$'
}

window.stringifyByConcatWithObject = str => {
  let res = ''
  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {
    let chr = str.charAt(i)
    res += escaped[chr] || chr
  }
  return `\`${res}\``
}

window.stringifyByConcatWithIf = str => {
  let res = '';
  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {
    let chr = str.charAt(i)
    if (chr === '\\')     chr = '\\\\'
    else if (chr === '`') chr = '\\`'
    else if (chr === '$') chr = '\\$'
    res += chr
  }
  return `\`${res}\``
}

​x
 
window.input = 'This is an aexample of a templated literal supported in modern JavaScript: `test ${test}`.'​window.stringifyByConcatWithSwitch = str => {  let res = '';  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {    let chr = str.charAt(i);    switch (chr) {      case '\\': chr = '\\\\'; break      case '`':  chr = '\\`';  break      case '$':  chr = '\\$';  break    }    res += chr  }  return `\`${res}\``}​window.stringifyByRegex = str => str.replace(/\\|`|\$(?={)/g, match => `\\${match}`)​window.stringifyByJoin = str => {  let res = [];  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {    let chr = str.charAt(i)    switch (chr) {      case '\\': chr = '\\\\'; break      case '`':  chr = '\\`';  break      case '$':  chr = '\\$';  break    }    res.push(chr)  }  return `\`${res.join()}\``}​const escaped = {  '\\': '\\\\',  '`':  '\\`',  '$':  '\\$'}​window.stringifyByConcatWithObject = str => {  let res = ''  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {    let chr = str.charAt(i)    res += escaped[chr] || chr  }  return `\`${res}\``}​window.stringifyByConcatWithIf = str => {  let res = '';  for (let i = 0, l = str.length; i < l; ++i) {    let chr = str.charAt(i)    if (chr === '\\')     chr = '\\\\'    else if (chr === '`') chr = '\\`'    else if (chr === '$') chr = '\\$'    res += chr  }  return `\`${res}\``}​

Tests:

concatenating with switch
stringifyByConcatWithSwitch(input)
stringifyByConcatWithSwitch(input)
regex replacement
stringifyByRegex(input)
stringifyByRegex(input)
array joining
stringifyByJoin(input)
stringifyByJoin(input)
concatenating with object
stringifyByConcatWithObject(input)
stringifyByConcatWithObject(input)
concatenating with if
stringifyByConcatWithIf(input)
stringifyByConcatWithIf(input)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
concatenating with switch
regex replacement
array joining
concatenating with object
concatenating with if

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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
concatenating with switch	699959.5 Ops/sec
regex replacement	1030719.0 Ops/sec
array joining	526777.3 Ops/sec
concatenating with object	199868.7 Ops/sec
concatenating with if	479213.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 5 months ago):

Benchmark Description

The benchmark measures the performance of different approaches to convert an input string into a JSON-escaped string, which is essentially a string where special characters are replaced with their corresponding escape sequences.

Test Cases

There are five test cases, each representing a different approach:

Concatenating with switch: This method iterates over the input string and uses a switch statement to determine if each character needs to be escaped. If it does, the corresponding escape sequence is concatenated.
Regex replacement: This method uses regular expressions to replace special characters in the input string with their corresponding escape sequences.
Array joining: Similar to concatenating with switch, but instead of using a switch statement, this method uses an array to store the escaped characters and then joins them into a single string.
Concatenating with object: This method uses an object to map special characters to their corresponding escape sequences. It then iterates over the input string, looks up each character in the object, and concatenates the resulting escape sequence.
Concatenating with if: Similar to concatenating with switch, but instead of using a switch statement, this method uses an if-else chain to determine which escape sequence to use for each special character.

Library and Special JS Features

No external libraries are used in these test cases.

However, two special JavaScript features are used:

Template literals: The input string is defined using a template literal (\test ${test}`) which allows for simple interpolation of variables into the string.
Property access on object: In the concatenating with object and if approaches, property access is used to retrieve the escape sequence for each special character from an object.

Pros/Cons and Alternatives

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

Concatenating with switch: Pros: simple implementation, easy to understand. Cons: potentially slower due to switch overhead.
Regex replacement: Pros: fast, using built-in regular expression engine. Cons: might be less efficient for very long strings or complex patterns.
Array joining: Similar to concatenating with switch in terms of pros and cons.
Concatenating with object: Pros: easy to add new escape sequences without modifying the implementation. Cons: potentially slower due to property access overhead.
Concatenating with if: Similar to concatenating with switch in terms of pros and cons.

Other alternatives might include using a library like lodash or writing your own custom string escaping function.

Performance Results

The benchmark results show that the regex replacement approach is generally the fastest, followed closely by concatenating with switch. The other approaches have slower performance due to various overheads (e.g., property access in concatenating with object).

Keep in mind that these results are specific to this particular test case and might not reflect real-world usage or other scenarios.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Description**

**Test Cases**

There are five test cases, each representing a different approach:

1. **Concatenating with switch**: This method iterates over the input string and uses a `switch` statement to determine if each character needs to be escaped. If it does, the corresponding escape sequence is concatenated.
2. **Regex replacement**: This method uses regular expressions to replace special characters in the input string with their corresponding escape sequences.
3. **Array joining**: Similar to concatenating with switch, but instead of using a `switch` statement, this method uses an array to store the escaped characters and then joins them into a single string.
4. **Concatenating with object**: This method uses an object to map special characters to their corresponding escape sequences. It then iterates over the input string, looks up each character in the object, and concatenates the resulting escape sequence.
5. **Concatenating with if**: Similar to concatenating with switch, but instead of using a `switch` statement, this method uses an `if-else` chain to determine which escape sequence to use for each special character.

**Library and Special JS Features**

No external libraries are used in these test cases.

However, two special JavaScript features are used:

1. **Template literals**: The input string is defined using a template literal (`\`test ${test}\`) which allows for simple interpolation of variables into the string.
2. **Property access on object**: In the concatenating with object and if approaches, property access is used to retrieve the escape sequence for each special character from an object.

**Pros/Cons and Alternatives**

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

1. **Concatenating with switch**: Pros: simple implementation, easy to understand. Cons: potentially slower due to `switch` overhead.
2. **Regex replacement**: Pros: fast, using built-in regular expression engine. Cons: might be less efficient for very long strings or complex patterns.
3. **Array joining**: Similar to concatenating with switch in terms of pros and cons.
4. **Concatenating with object**: Pros: easy to add new escape sequences without modifying the implementation. Cons: potentially slower due to property access overhead.
5. **Concatenating with if**: Similar to concatenating with switch in terms of pros and cons.

Other alternatives might include using a library like [lodash](https://lodash.com/) or writing your own custom string escaping function.

**Performance Results**

Keep in mind that these results are specific to this particular test case and might not reflect real-world usage or other scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

stringify by concatenating or regex replacement or array joining (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: concatenating with switch vs regex replacement vs array joining vs concatenating with object vs concatenating with if

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

concatenating with switch

regex replacement

array joining

concatenating with object

concatenating with if

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 5 months ago):