Benchmark: concat vs const - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var PREFIX = "/studio_node"
var NAME = "/yes"
var LASTNAME = "/studio_node/yes"

Tests:

string concat
for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ var result = PREFIX + NAME }
string const
for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ var result = LASTNAME }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string concat
string const

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string concat	3895.6 Ops/sec
string const	7980.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `concat vs const` benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **String Concatenation (`string concat`)**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings.
2. **Constant String Lookup (`string const`)**: In this approach, a constant string reference is used directly, without concatenating.

**Pros and Cons**

**String Concatenation (concat)**

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand
* Works well for small to medium-sized strings
* Can be efficient if the same string is concatenated repeatedly with different values (e.g., using template literals)

Cons:

* Creates a new string object on each concatenation, leading to increased memory allocation and garbage collection overhead
* Can result in slower performance due to the overhead of creating new objects

**Constant String Lookup (const)**

Pros:

* Reuses the same string object for multiple references, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead
* Can lead to faster performance as the browser can cache the string objects and reuse them efficiently

Cons:

* Requires careful planning and consideration when defining the constant strings to avoid unnecessary relocations or changes to the string data
* May not be suitable for all use cases where dynamic string concatenation is necessary

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers may utilize optimized string operations, such as `String.prototype.concat()` or `String.prototype.replace()`, which might affect the performance of these tests.

There are no special JavaScript features being tested in this benchmark, as both approaches rely on basic language syntax and do not involve advanced features like async/await, promises, or generators.

**Alternatives**

For similar benchmarks, you could consider testing other string-related operations, such as:

* Using `String.prototype.replace()` with a regex pattern
* Comparing the performance of different string encoding schemes (e.g., UTF-8 vs UTF-16)
* Testing the impact of different string normalization modes on performance

These alternatives would allow you to explore various aspects of string manipulation in JavaScript and compare their performance characteristics.

When preparing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Input data size and complexity
* Browser and platform versions
* Optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization)
* Memory constraints and garbage collection overhead

By carefully designing your benchmark test cases, you can ensure that the results accurately reflect the performance differences between different approaches.

Related benchmarks:

concat vs const (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string concat vs string const

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

string concat

string const

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):