Benchmark: array.join vs string literal

Script Preparation code:

var test = "bdahjsbfahjdfbahdf"
var test2 = "nfajkdsfnklruiefbruiefhqbgrhbgqlk"
var test3 = "abldfjbafbeirwubfejkwbfkwlfbbdabsjkdblKDBKAJBSDK"

Tests:

classNameGenerator
const classNameGenerator = (...args) => { return args.join(' '); }; const res = classNameGenerator(test, test2, test3);
literal string
const finalString2 = `${test} ${test2} ${test3}`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
classNameGenerator
literal string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between using `String.join()` and a template literal (`${}`) to concatenate strings in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`String.join()`**: This method concatenates all elements of an array into a single string, separated by a specified delimiter (in this case, a space).
2. **Template Literal (`${}`)**: A template literal is a new way of formatting strings in JavaScript that allows for interpolation using backticks.

**Pros and Cons**

* `String.join()`:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than template literals for large arrays or complex string concatenations.
* Template Literal (`${}`):
	+ Pros: Faster and more readable than traditional string concatenation methods, especially for complex strings.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive for beginners, may require additional setup (e.g., using ES6+ syntax).

**Library Used**

None.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6+) and provide a more concise way of formatting strings. They allow interpolation using backticks (`) and variables `${}`.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Analysis**

The preparation code creates three test strings: `test`, `test2`, and `test3`. These strings are not used in the actual benchmarking but are likely included to ensure that the benchmark is properly set up and can be run multiple times.

**Individual Test Cases**

Two test cases are provided:

1. **`classNameGenerator`**: This test case uses `String.join()` to concatenate three string literals into a single string.
2. **`literal string`**: This test case uses a template literal (`${}`) to concatenate the same three string literals into a single string.

**Benchmark Result Analysis**

The benchmark result shows that:

* The template literal approach is significantly faster than using `String.join()`.
* Both tests are executed approximately 5,693,721 times per second on a Chrome 108 browser on a Linux desktop platform.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider the following methods for string concatenation:

1. **Traditional String Concatenation**: Using the `+` operator to concatenate strings (e.g., `var result = 'Hello' + 'World';`).
2. **Array Methods**: Using array methods like `join()` or `concat()` (although these are less intuitive than template literals).

Keep in mind that performance differences between these approaches may be negligible for most use cases, and the choice ultimately depends on personal preference, code readability, and maintenance needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
classNameGenerator	3634202.8 Ops/sec
literal string	5692721.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array.join vs string literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: classNameGenerator vs literal string

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

classNameGenerator

literal string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):