Benchmark: join vs string + trim vs filter + join

Script Preparation code:

var A = null;
var B = 'test';

Tests:

join
var result = [A | '' , B | ''].join(' ');
string + trim
var result = `${A | ''} ${B | ''}`.trim();
filter + joint
var result = [A, B].filter(Boolean).join(' ');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
string + trim
filter + joint

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking scenario.

**Overview**

The `MeasureThat.net` website provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The given JSON represents a benchmark with three test cases: "join vs string + trim vs filter + join".

**Tested Options**

The three test cases are designed to compare different approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript:

1. **Join**: Using the `join()` method on an array.
2. **String + Trim**: Using template literals (`${}`) and the `trim()` method to concatenate two strings.
3. **Filter + Join**: Using the `filter()` method to remove null values from an array, followed by a call to `join()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Join**:
	* Pros: Efficient and concise way to concatenate arrays using a single method call.
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation due to creating an intermediate array.
2. **String + Trim**:
	* Pros: Can be more readable and maintainable, especially for small strings, as it avoids the need to create an intermediate array.
	* Cons: Requires explicit use of template literals (`${}`) which may not be familiar to all developers.
3. **Filter + Join**:
	* Pros: Allows for easy removal of null values from the input array before concatenation.
	* Cons: May require more memory allocation due to creating an intermediate array and filtering out null values.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned, but template literals (`${}`) are used. Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a way to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Input Data**: The input data for each test case should be representative of real-world scenarios. In this case, an array containing two strings is used.
* **Browser and Platform Variability**: Different browsers and platforms may have varying performance characteristics, which can affect benchmark results.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare different string concatenation approaches or want to optimize your own code, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Using `+` operator**: Concatenating strings using the `+` operator is a simple approach but less efficient than using `join()` or template literals.
2. **Using `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: You can use the `reduce()` method to concatenate an array of strings in a more functional programming style.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a good starting point for understanding the relative performance of different string concatenation approaches in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.102 Safari/537.36 OPR/84.0.4316.21

Browser/OS: Opera 84 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	2562171.5 Ops/sec
string + trim	3419861.2 Ops/sec
filter + joint	1983404.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

join vs string + trim vs filter + join (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: join vs string + trim vs filter + joint

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

string + trim

filter + joint

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):