var arr = Array.from(1000).fill("test");arr.join(",");let str = "";for(let i = 0; i<arr.length; i++){ str +=arr[i];}--enable-precise-memory-info flag.
| Test case name | Result |
|---|---|
| arr join | |
| string join |
| Test name | Executions per second |
|---|---|
| arr join | 26317972.0 Ops/sec |
| string join | 27927836.0 Ops/sec |
Overview of the Benchmark
The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using Array.join() and concatenating strings manually (for loop) to concatenate an array of strings.
What is being tested?
Two test cases are compared:
arr.join(','): This method takes an array as input and returns a string by joining all the elements in the array with a specified separator (in this case, a comma).for loop): This approach manually iterates over the array, appending each element to a string using the += operator.Options compared
The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:
Array.join(): A built-in JavaScript method that joins an array into a string.for loop): A custom implementation that uses a for loop to iterate over the array and concatenate the elements to a string.Pros and Cons
Array.join()Pros:
Cons:
for loop)Pros:
Array.join() for very large datasets since it avoids the overhead of creating a new string and handles edge cases in-place.Cons:
Array.join().Other considerations
When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:
Array.join() might be sufficient. However, for very large datasets (e.g., tens of thousands of elements), manual concatenation using a for loop may be faster.Array.join() is likely a better choice since it's more concise and expressive.Library or special JS feature
None are mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. The focus is on comparing two simple approaches to concatenate an array of strings.
If you have any further questions or would like to explore other aspects of this benchmark, feel free to ask!
