Benchmark: teste-guzz - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 800; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 800; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 800; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/116.0.1938.69

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	5521.8 Ops/sec
using concat function	4901.1 Ops/sec
using template literals	5438.3 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of three different approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript:

1. Using the `+` operator (also known as string addition)
2. Using the `concat()` function
3. Using template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015)

**Test Case 1: Using the `+` Operator**

The test case uses a simple loop that concatenates two strings: `id` and `name`. The resulting string is assigned to the variable `result`.

```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 800; ++i) {
  let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem";
}
```

**Pros:** Simple and easy to read. Most developers are familiar with this approach.

**Cons:** String concatenation using the `+` operator can lead to performance issues due to the creation of a new string object on each iteration.

**Test Case 2: Using the `concat()` Function**

The test case uses another simple loop that concatenates two strings: `id`, `name`, and a static value `"someItem"`. The resulting string is assigned to the variable `result`.

```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 800; ++i) {
  let result = "" + id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem";
}
```

**Pros:** Can be more efficient than using the `+` operator, as it avoids creating a new string object on each iteration.

**Cons:** The use of the `concat()` function can lead to additional overhead due to the creation of a new array.

**Test Case 3: Using Template Literals**

The test case uses another simple loop that concatenates two strings: `id`, `name`, and a static value `"someItem"`. The resulting string is assigned to the variable `result`.

```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 800; ++i) {
  let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`;
}
```

**Pros:** Can be more efficient than using the `+` operator or `concat()` function, as it avoids creating a new string object on each iteration.

**Cons:** Requires ECMAScript 2015 support and may require additional configuration in older browsers.

In summary, the benchmark is designed to measure the performance of three different approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript: using the `+` operator, using the `concat()` function, and using template literals. The results will provide insights into which approach is most efficient and suitable for different use cases.

As for the libraries used in the test case, there doesn't appear to be any external library being used other than the built-in JavaScript `String` prototype methods.

Regarding special JS features or syntax, template literals are a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They allow for more readable and efficient string concatenation using backticks (``) instead of quotes or the `+` operator.

Other alternatives for string concatenation in JavaScript include:

* Using the `join()` method with an array of strings
* Using a string interpolation library (not applicable in this case)
* Using a custom implementation of string concatenation (not applicable in this case)

Note that the performance differences between these approaches may vary depending on the specific use case and the browser or environment being used.

Related benchmarks:

teste-guzz (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

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):