Benchmark: Template vs string concat 3

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {0:"test",1:"test",2:"test",3:"test"};

Tests:

Concatenation
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ let s = ""; for (let j = 0; j < 4; j++){ s += obj[j] + " - "; } s = s.substring(0,s.length - 3); }
Template strings
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ let s = `${obj[0]} - ${obj[1]} - ${obj[2]} - ${obj[3]}`; }
Concatenating strings with template strings
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ let s = ""; for (let j = 0; j < 2; j++){ s += obj[j] + " - "; } s += `${obj[2]} - `; s += `${obj[3]}`; }
Concatenation without substring call
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ let s = obj[0] + " - " + obj[1] + " - " + obj[2] + " - " + obj[3]; }
Concat
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ let s = "testtesttesttesttest" + obj[1] + " - "; }
Template
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ let s = `testtesttesttesttest ${obj[1]} - `; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Concatenation
Template strings
Concatenating strings with template strings
Concatenation without substring call
Concat
Template

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/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Concatenation	276.7 Ops/sec
Template strings	340.1 Ops/sec
Concatenating strings with template strings	308.5 Ops/sec
Concatenation without substring call	341.5 Ops/sec
Concat	1721.5 Ops/sec
Template	1705.1 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 benchmark and its various test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript. The benchmarks compare the execution speed of six approaches:

1. Concatenating strings using the `+` operator
2. Using template literals (template strings)
3. Concatenating strings with template literals, but only concatenating two initial elements and then appending a single element at the end
4. Concatenating strings without calling the `substring()` method
5. Using template literals

**Library**

There is no specific JavaScript library used in this benchmark. The test cases focus solely on the differences between various string concatenation approaches.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The following special JS feature or syntax is used:

* Template literals (template strings): introduced in ECMAScript 2015, these provide a more concise way to concatenate strings and variables using the backtick (`) character.
* String interpolation: some browsers (like Chrome) support string interpolation using template literals. This allows inserting variables directly into a string without needing to use concatenation.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

The six test cases measure the performance of different approaches:

1. **Concatenation**: simply concatenates strings using the `+` operator.
2. **Template strings**: uses template literals for string concatenation.
3. **Concatenating strings with template strings**: a variation of the previous approach, where only two initial elements are concatenated and then a single element is appended at the end.
4. **Concatenation without substring call**: avoids calling the `substring()` method when removing characters from the end of the string.
5. **Concat**: uses simple concatenation using the `+` operator.
6. **Template**: similar to the previous approach, but only tests template literals.

**Pros and Cons**

Each approach has its pros and cons:

* **Concatenation**:
	+ Pros: widely supported across different browsers and versions.
	+ Cons: can be slow due to the need for repeated string creation and assignment.
* **Template strings**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and efficient in modern browsers that support it.
	+ Cons: may not be supported in older browsers or versions.
* **Concatenating strings with template strings**:
	+ Pros: similar benefits of template literals, but reduces the number of concatenations.
	+ Cons: still requires support for template literals in newer browsers and versions.
* **Concatenation without substring call**:
	+ Pros: avoids a potential performance bottleneck (substring() method).
	+ Cons: may require more complex string manipulation.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to string concatenation include:

1. Using `String.prototype.split()` and `String.prototype.join()`
2. Utilizing `Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.join()`
3. Employing `Buffer` or `TypedArray` for efficient, low-level string operations

In conclusion, this benchmark helps evaluate the performance of different string concatenation approaches in JavaScript, highlighting the importance of choosing the most suitable method based on the specific use case and target audience.

Related benchmarks:

Template vs string concat 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Concatenation vs Template strings vs Concatenating strings with template strings vs Concatenation without substring call vs Concat vs Template

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Concatenation

Template strings

Concatenating strings with template strings

Concatenation without substring call

Concat

Template

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):