Benchmark: Native JS: string plus VS template string!

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

AخA
 
var name = "name";var id = "id";

Tests:

using plus operator
let result; for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { result += id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; } console.log(result); return result.length;
let result;
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) {
result += id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem";
}
console.log(result);
return result.length;
using concat function
let result; for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { result += "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); } console.log(result); return result.length;
let result;
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) {
result += "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem");
}
console.log(result);
return result.length;
using template literals
let result; for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { result += `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; } console.log(result); return result.length;
let result;
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) {
result += `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`;
}
console.log(result);
return result.length;

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
using plus operator
using concat function
using template literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	41692.6 Ops/sec
using concat function	40907.7 Ops/sec
using template literals	41354.3 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark measures which approach is best for concatenating four strings in JavaScript. The script preparation code sets two variables, name and id, to string values. The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that this benchmark is purely focused on JavaScript performance.

Options Compared

Three options are being compared:

Using the plus operator (+): This approach concatenates strings using the + operator.
Using the concat() function: This approach uses the built-in concat() method to concatenate strings.
Using template literals (${}): This approach uses a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) called template literals.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Using the plus operator (+):
- Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for small concatenations.
- Cons: Can lead to memory leaks if not used carefully, as it creates new strings in each iteration.
Using the concat() function:
- Pros: Efficient for large concatenations, as it avoids creating new strings in each iteration.
- Cons: Requires more code than using the plus operator, and may be slower due to method call overhead.
Using template literals (${}):
- Pros: Convenient, efficient, and readable, especially for larger concatenations.
- Cons: May have compatibility issues with older browsers or versions of JavaScript.

Library Usage

The concat() function is a built-in JavaScript function that concatenates strings. It's not a separate library.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

Template literals (${}) were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a concise way to embed expressions inside string literals.

Benchmark Results

The benchmark results show the performance of each approach:

Using template literals: The fastest, with an average of 81717.671875 executions per second.
Using the concat() function: Slower than template literals, but faster than using the plus operator.
Using the plus operator: The slowest.

Alternatives

If you're looking for alternative approaches to concatenating strings in JavaScript, consider:

Using a string builder: A custom class that accumulates strings and provides methods for manipulating them.
Using an array or list: Storing strings in an array or list and joining them later can be efficient, especially for larger concatenations.
Using a library: Libraries like jQuery or Underscore.js provide string manipulation utilities that might offer better performance than native JavaScript approaches.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures which approach is best for concatenating four strings in JavaScript. The script preparation code sets two variables, `name` and `id`, to string values. The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that this benchmark is purely focused on JavaScript performance.

**Options Compared**

Three options are being compared:

1. **Using the plus operator (`+`)**: This approach concatenates strings using the `+` operator.
2. **Using the `concat()` function**: This approach uses the built-in `concat()` method to concatenate strings.
3. **Using template literals (`${}`)**: This approach uses a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) called template literals.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using the plus operator (`+`)**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for small concatenations.
	* Cons: Can lead to memory leaks if not used carefully, as it creates new strings in each iteration.
2. **Using the `concat()` function**:
	* Pros: Efficient for large concatenations, as it avoids creating new strings in each iteration.
	* Cons: Requires more code than using the plus operator, and may be slower due to method call overhead.
3. **Using template literals (`${}`)**:
	* Pros: Convenient, efficient, and readable, especially for larger concatenations.
	* Cons: May have compatibility issues with older browsers or versions of JavaScript.

**Library Usage**

The `concat()` function is a built-in JavaScript function that concatenates strings. It's not a separate library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals (`${}`) were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a concise way to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show the performance of each approach:

* Using template literals: The fastest, with an average of 81717.671875 executions per second.
* Using the `concat()` function: Slower than template literals, but faster than using the plus operator.
* Using the plus operator: The slowest.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to concatenating strings in JavaScript, consider:

1. **Using a string builder**: A custom class that accumulates strings and provides methods for manipulating them.
2. **Using an array or list**: Storing strings in an array or list and joining them later can be efficient, especially for larger concatenations.
3. **Using a library**: Libraries like jQuery or Underscore.js provide string manipulation utilities that might offer better performance than native JavaScript approaches.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: string plus VS template string! (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):