Benchmark: string concatenation 2

Tests:

for
const nums = 65536; const random = new Uint8Array(nums); crypto.getRandomValues(random) const RG_CHARSET = '0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz-._'; let z = ''; for(let i = 0; i < nums; i += 1) { z + RG_CHARSET[random[i] & RG_CHARSET.length] }
forEach
const nums = 65536; const random = new Uint8Array(nums); crypto.getRandomValues(random) const RG_CHARSET = '0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz-._'; let t = ''; random.forEach(randomNumber => t + RG_CHARSET[randomNumber & RG_CHARSET.length])
reduce
const nums = 65536; const random = new Uint8Array(nums); crypto.getRandomValues(random) const RG_CHARSET = '0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz-._'; random.reduce( (randomString, randomNumber) => randomString + RG_CHARSET[randomNumber % RG_CHARSET.length], '' );
map + join
const nums = 65536; const random = new Uint8Array(nums); crypto.getRandomValues(random) const RG_CHARSET = '0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz-._'; random.map(randomNumber => RG_CHARSET[randomNumber & RG_CHARSET.length]).join('');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
forEach
reduce
map + join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	1062.7 Ops/sec
forEach	481.9 Ops/sec
reduce	674.8 Ops/sec
map + join	299.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript code is crucial for ensuring optimal execution speed and efficiency.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different string concatenation methods in JavaScript, specifically:

1. String concatenation using a `for` loop
2. String concatenation using the `forEach` method
3. String concatenation using the `reduce` method
4. String concatenation using the `map` and `join` methods

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different approaches to string concatenation:

1. **For Loop**: A traditional loop-based approach where a variable is initialized, and in each iteration, a character from the random charset is appended to the result string.
2. **forEach**: An iterative method that applies a callback function to each element of an array, returning an empty string as the accumulator.
3. **Reduce**: A functional method that applies a reduction function to each element of an array, accumulating the results in a single string.
4. **Map + Join**: A combination of two methods: `map` converts the array to an array of characters, and `join` concatenates them into a single string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **For Loop**:
	* Pros: Simple, intuitive, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of the loop and string concatenation in each iteration.
2. **forEach**:
	* Pros: Elegant, concise, and easy to read.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods due to the callback function's overhead.
3. **Reduce**:
	* Pros: Functional programming style, concise, and often faster than loops.
	* Cons: Requires understanding of the reduction function and may have higher memory requirements.
4. **Map + Join**:
	* Pros: Efficient, readable, and easy to maintain.
	* Cons: May require additional library or built-in functions (e.g., `map`), and can be slower than native string concatenation.

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark, the following libraries are used:

1. **crypto**: Used for generating random numbers.
2. **Array.prototype.forEach**, **Array.prototype.reduce**, and **String.prototype.join**: These methods are built-in to JavaScript, but their performance may vary across browsers and implementations.

**Special JS Feature**

The `for` loop in the benchmark uses a feature called "short-circuiting" or "lazy evaluation". This means that the loop will only execute as many iterations as necessary to reach the desired string length. While not explicitly mentioned, this optimization is implied by the use of `random[i] & RG_CHARSET.length`.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string concatenation include:

1. **String.prototype.repeat()**: A built-in method in modern JavaScript that allows you to repeat a string multiple times.
2. **Template literals**: A feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create dynamic strings.

Keep in mind that the performance of these alternatives may vary depending on the browser and JavaScript implementation used.

Related benchmarks:

string concatenation 2 (version: 0)

benchmarking concatenating a randomly generated string

Comparing performance of: for vs forEach vs reduce vs map + join

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

forEach

reduce

map + join

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):