Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat + numeric hash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }
numeric hash
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = i << 16 | i; }

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
numeric hash

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 is being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of different ways to concatenate four strings: `name`, `id`, "someItem", and a numeric hash. The goal is to find the best solution for this common JavaScript operation.

**Options Compared**

1. **Using Plus Operator (`+`)**:
	* Code Snippet: `let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem";`
	* This approach involves concatenating strings using the `+` operator.
2. **Using Concat Function (`concat()`)**:
	* Code Snippet: `let result = "" .concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem");`
	* This approach uses the built-in `concat()` method to concatenate strings.
3. **Using Template Literals (`${}`)**:
	* Code Snippet: `let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`;`
	* This approach uses template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to concatenate strings.
4. **Numeric Hash**:
	* Code Snippet: `let result = i << 16 | i;` ( Note: This is not a traditional string concatenation but rather a bitwise operation)
	* This approach uses a numeric hash function (bitwise OR) to create the desired output.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Using Plus Operator (`+`)**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to string interning (optimization).
2. **Using Concat Function (`concat()`)**:
	* Pros: More efficient than `+`, handles arrays correctly.
	* Cons: Less intuitive and less flexible.
3. **Using Template Literals (`${}`)**:
	* Pros: More readable, flexible, and expressive.
	* Cons: Requires ECMAScript 2015 support.
4. **Numeric Hash**:
	* Pros: Fastest, but least intuitive.
	* Cons: Uses bitwise operations, which might be unfamiliar to some developers.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that template literals use a JavaScript library internally (ECMAScript 2015 standard).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Template literals are a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They provide a more readable and expressive way to concatenate strings.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a simple test case with fixed values, which might not accurately represent real-world scenarios.
* The results are likely influenced by the specific browser and hardware used for testing.
* It's essential to consider the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability when choosing an approach to string concatenation.

**Alternatives**

1. **String Interpolation**: Some frameworks like React or Angular use a different syntax for interpolation (e.g., `${name}`).
2. **ES6+ Template Literals with Interpolation**: You can use the same template literals syntax but add interpolations using backticks and expressions, e.g., `\`${name}\``.
3. **Other String Concatenation Methods**: Other methods like `String.prototype.replace()` or `Array.prototype.join()` might be used depending on the specific requirements.

Keep in mind that this explanation is intended to provide a general understanding of the benchmark and its options. The best approach for your use case may depend on the specific requirements, browser support, and performance considerations.

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/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	158511.8 Ops/sec
using concat function	134846.3 Ops/sec
using template literals	168637.5 Ops/sec
numeric hash	28542862.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat + numeric hash (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

numeric hash

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):