Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs template string vs concat with string

Tests:

String()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(i)); }
.toString()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i.toString()); }
template string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${i}`); }
concat with string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i + ""); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
template string
concat with string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14092.77.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/93.0.4577.107 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 93 on Chrome OS 14092.77.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	15198.2 Ops/sec
.toString()	175576.0 Ops/sec
template string	270942.2 Ops/sec
concat with string	272331.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of different methods for converting numbers to strings in JavaScript. The test has four individual test cases:

1. `String()`
2. `.toString()`
3. Template string (`${}`)
4. Concatenation with string (`+ ""`)

**Library and Features**

None of these test cases rely on any external libraries or special JS features, so we can focus on the JavaScript syntax itself.

**Options Compared**

The four options being compared are:

1. `String()`: The built-in `String()` function in JavaScript.
2. `.toString()`: The `toString()` method on numbers in JavaScript (which is equivalent to calling `String()`).
3. Template string (`${}`): A feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) for inserting expressions into strings using a placeholder syntax.
4. Concatenation with string (`+ ""`): A simple way to convert a number to a string by concatenating it with an empty string.

**Pros and Cons**

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

1. `String()`: Pros: Simple, widely supported, and well-documented. Cons: May incur overhead due to function call.
2. `.toString()`: Pros: Same as above, but with an added benefit of not incurring function call overhead. Cons: Less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with JavaScript methods.
3. Template string (`${}`): Pros: Modern, efficient, and readable. Cons: Requires ECMAScript 2015 support or later.
4. Concatenation with string (`+ ""`): Pros: Lightweight, simple to use. Cons: May incur overhead due to string concatenation.

**Benchmark Results**

According to the latest benchmark results, the top performer is `concat with string (+ "")`, followed by `template string (${})`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods or variants of these options, here are a few examples:

* `parseInt()` or `parseFloat()`: Convert numbers to strings using parsing functions.
* `Number.toLocaleString()`: Convert numbers to strings with locale-specific formatting.
* `Buffer.toString()`: Convert Buffer objects to strings (useful in Node.js).
* `Intl.NumberFormat().toString()`: Convert numbers to strings with locale-specific formatting using the Intl API.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or use cases, so it's essential to consider your specific requirements when choosing a method.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs template string vs concat with string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs template string vs concat with string

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

template string

concat with string

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):