Benchmark: sdstring concat speed

Script Preparation code:

var a = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Tests:

using ` to concat string
`aaa ${a}`
using + to concat string
'aaa ' + a
using concat() to concat string
'aaa '.concat(a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using ` to concat string
using + to concat string
using concat() to concat string

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 Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript string concatenation methods, specifically `+`, template literals (using backticks ``), and the `concat()` method.

**Options Compared**

Three different approaches are compared:

1. **Using ` +`**: This method uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings.
2. **Using template literals (``)**: This method uses the backtick (`) character to create a template literal, which allows for more expressive string formatting.
3. **Using `concat()`**: This method uses the built-in `concat()` method to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using ` +`**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can lead to poor performance due to the creation of intermediate strings, and may not handle all edge cases correctly (e.g., concatenating with null or undefined values).
2. **Using template literals (``)**:
	* Pros: More expressive and flexible than `+`, with built-in support for interpolation and string manipulation.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the complexity of parsing template literals, especially when dealing with large strings.
3. **Using `concat()`**:
	* Pros: Optimized for performance and handles edge cases correctly (e.g., concatenating with null or undefined values).
	* Cons: Less expressive and flexible than template literals.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark tests explicitly use any libraries beyond JavaScript's built-in functions (e.g., `concat()`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are mentioned, but it's worth noting that some JavaScript features like ES6 arrow functions, async/await, or Promises may have an impact on performance, although they are not directly relevant to this specific benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

To further compare the performance of these string concatenation methods, additional test cases could be added, such as:

* Using `String.prototype.concat()`
* Using a library like Underscore.js or Lodash for string manipulation
* Using a different syntax, like using the `join()` method with an array

However, these alternatives are not explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark.

The current benchmark provides a good starting point to understand the performance differences between these three common string concatenation methods.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/88.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using ` to concat string	411882496.0 Ops/sec
using + to concat string	1304556160.0 Ops/sec
using concat() to concat string	50652660.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

sdstring concat speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using ` to concat string vs using + to concat string vs using concat() to concat string

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using ` to concat string

using + to concat string

using concat() to concat string

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):