Benchmark: plus vs template literals vs String.concat

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

using plus operator
let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem";
using concat function
let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem");
using template literals
let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using concat function
using template literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing three approaches to concatenate strings:

1. Using the `+` operator (plus sign)
2. Using the `concat()` function
3. Using template literals (`${}`)

The goal of this benchmark is to find the most efficient approach for concatenating strings in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

* **Using the `+` operator**: This method involves using the addition operator (`+`) to concatenate two or more strings. The resulting string is created by concatenating each individual string.
* **Using the `concat()` function**: This method uses a separate function called `concat()` to concatenate strings. This approach creates an intermediate array of concatenated strings, which is then converted back into a single string.
* **Using template literals**: Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow you to create new strings by inserting expressions inside backticks (`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using the `+` operator**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slow for large numbers of concatenated strings, as it creates a new string object on each concatenation.
* **Using the `concat()` function**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than using the `+` operator for large numbers of concatenated strings, as it avoids creating intermediate objects.
	+ Cons: Creates an intermediate array and then converts it back into a single string, which can be slower and more memory-intensive.
* **Using template literals**:
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, and modern. Template literals are optimized for concatenation and interpolation.
	+ Cons: May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support ES6.

**Library Usage**

None of the options use a library specifically for string concatenation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals use a special syntax (`${}`) to create new strings. This feature is introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to benchmark other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using `String.prototype.replace()` method with a regular expression to replace placeholders with concatenated values.
* Using `Array.prototype.join()` method to concatenate an array of strings.
* Using a library like Lodash's `chain` function or Underscore.js's `template` function for string concatenation.

Note that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. The benchmark results provided can help determine which approach is most efficient for your particular scenario.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	12779287.0 Ops/sec
using concat function	10423257.0 Ops/sec
using template literals	12556842.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

plus vs template literals vs String.concat (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate strings

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

Created: one year 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 one month ago):