Benchmark: template literals vs numeric hash vs bigint hash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

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; }
Bigint 256bit hash
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = BigInt(i) << 128n | BigInt(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using template literals
numeric hash
Bigint 256bit hash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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 template literals	170994.5 Ops/sec
numeric hash	31994086.0 Ops/sec
Bigint 256bit hash	94790.3 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 benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to concatenate four strings:

1. Template literals
2. Numeric hash (using bitwise operations)
3. Bigint 256-bit hash (using BigInt)

**Options Compared**

The options compared are:

* `template literals`: uses template literals to concatenate the strings, e.g., `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`
* `numeric hash`: uses bitwise operations (`<<` and `|`) to create a numeric hash from the concatenated strings
* `Bigint 256-bit hash`: uses BigInt to create a 256-bit hash from the concatenated strings

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

* **Template literals**: Pros:
	+ Easy to read and write
	+ Portable across different JavaScript engines
	+ Supports automatic string interpolation
Cons:
	+ May incur overhead due to regular expression parsing (although this is optimized in modern browsers)
* **Numeric hash**: Pros:
	+ Can be faster than template literals, especially for large inputs
	+ Simple and efficient implementation
Cons:
	+ Requires bitwise operations, which can lead to unexpected results if not implemented correctly
	+ May not work as expected with non-numeric data types
* **Bigint 256-bit hash**: Pros:
	+ Provides a very large range of possible values, reducing collisions
	+ Can be faster than template literals and numeric hash for very large inputs
Cons:
	+ Requires BigInt support, which is not enabled by default in all browsers
	+ May incur additional overhead due to the use of BigInt

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark options explicitly use a library. However, some libraries may provide optimization or performance enhancements for these approaches.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses bitwise operations (`<<` and `|`) to create numeric hashes. This is a relatively low-level operation that can be sensitive to specific browser implementations and versions.

In general, the benchmark's focus on performance makes it more likely to use specialized syntax like this, but in most other cases, standard JavaScript features are used.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for string concatenation include:

* Using `String.fromCharCode()` or `String.fromCodePoint()` to create strings from individual characters
* Utilizing `Array.prototype.join()` and `Array.prototype.concat()`
* Employing libraries like Lodash's `join` function

These alternatives may offer performance benefits in specific scenarios, but they are not as well-suited for simple string concatenation tasks like the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

template literals vs numeric hash vs bigint hash (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using template literals vs numeric hash vs Bigint 256bit hash

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using template literals

numeric hash

Bigint 256bit 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):