Benchmark: Build String vs. Parse String

Script Preparation code:

var obj = { parent: 'http://parents/123', child: 'A' }
var key = 'http://parents/123|A'

Tests:

Build by Concatenating
var _key = obj.parent + '|' + obj.child
Build by Template String
var _key = `${obj.parent}|${obj.child}`
Parse by Split
var _splitted = key.split('|') var _parent = _splitted[0] var _child = _splitted[1]
Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)
var [_parent, _child] = key.split('|')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Build by Concatenating
Build by Template String
Parse by Split
Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.131 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Build by Concatenating	5332980.0 Ops/sec
Build by Template String	5305152.0 Ops/sec
Parse by Split	4528851.5 Ops/sec
Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)	4403544.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares four approaches for building or parsing a string: concatenation, template strings, splitting with the `split()` method, and splitting with destructuring.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Build by Concatenating**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate two strings: `"http://parents/123" + '|' + "A"`.
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slow due to string creation and concatenation.
2. **Build by Template String**: This approach uses template literals (`${}`) to build the string: `var _key = ${obj.parent}|${obj.child}`.
	* Pros: Efficient and readable.
	* Cons: Requires modern JavaScript version support (ECMAScript 2015+).
3. **Parse by Split**: This approach splits the input string into two parts using the `|` character, then assigns each part to a variable.
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for large strings.
	* Cons: Can be slower than concatenation or template strings for small strings due to overhead of splitting and assigning.
4. **Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)**: This approach uses the `split()` method with destructuring to assign each part to two variables in a single statement: `var [_parent, _child] = key.split('|')`.
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and concise.
	* Cons: Requires modern JavaScript version support (ECMAScript 2015+) and is only possible with destructuring.

**Library**

None of the approaches rely on an external library. The `split()` method is a built-in JavaScript function, and template literals are supported by most modern browsers.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses two features:

1. **Template literals**: Required for the "Build by Template String" approach.
2. **Destructuring assignment**: Used in the "Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)" approach to assign the split parts to multiple variables in a single statement.

**Other Alternatives**

If none of these approaches are suitable, other alternatives could be:

1. Using `substr()` or `substring()` methods for string manipulation.
2. Employing regular expressions for splitting and parsing strings.
3. Utilizing third-party libraries like Stringify or Format for more advanced string formatting options.

In summary, the benchmark compares four approaches for building or parsing a string: concatenation, template strings, splitting with the `split()` method, and splitting with destructuring. Each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the use case.

Related benchmarks:

Build String vs. Parse String (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Build by Concatenating vs Build by Template String vs Parse by Split vs Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Build by Concatenating

Build by Template String

Parse by Split

Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)

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):