Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs ``.toString()

Tests:

toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toLowerCase()); }
String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num).toLowerCase()); }
``.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`.toLowerCase()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString()
String()
``.toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition with three test cases: `String()` vs `.toString()` vs ``.toString()`. We will break down each test case, explaining what's being tested, the pros and cons of different approaches, and other considerations.

**Test Case 1: `toString()`**

In this test case, the code uses the built-in `toLowerCase()` method to convert numbers to lowercase strings:
```javascript
let num = 500;
let nums = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
  nums.push(num.toLowerCase());
}
```
**What's being tested**

The benchmark is testing the performance of converting a number to a string using the `toLowerCase()` method.

**Approaches compared**

There are two approaches compared:

1. **`toString()`**: Using the built-in `toString()` method to convert numbers to strings.
2. **`String()`**: Using the `String()` function to convert numbers to strings.

**Pros and Cons**

* `toString()`: This approach is likely to be faster since it's a built-in method optimized for performance.
	+ Pros: Wide support, fast execution
	+ Cons: May not work as expected in some cases (e.g., NaN values)
* `String()` : Using the `String()` function requires an extra step, which might impact performance.
	+ Pros: Works with all numbers, including NaN values
	+ Cons: Slower than built-in `toString()`

**Other considerations**

The `toLowerCase()` method is used in this test case to ensure that the comparison is only between string conversions. If the `toLowerCase()` method were not used, the results might be skewed by other factors.

**Test Case 2: `String()`**

In this test case, the code uses the `String()` function to convert numbers to strings:
```javascript
let num = 500;
let nums = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
  nums.push(String(num).toLowerCase());
}
```
**What's being tested**

The benchmark is testing the performance of converting a number to a string using the `String()` function.

**Approaches compared**

Similar to Test Case 1, there are two approaches compared:

1. **`toString()`**: Using the built-in `toString()` method to convert numbers to strings.
2. **`String()`**: Using the `String()` function to convert numbers to strings.

**Pros and Cons**

**Other considerations**

Similar to Test Case 1, using the `toLowerCase()` method ensures that the comparison is only between string conversions.

**Test Case 3: ``.toString()`**

In this test case, the code uses template literals with the `toString()` method to convert numbers to strings:
```javascript
let num = 500;
let nums = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
  nums.push(`${num}`.toLowerCase());
}
```
**What's being tested**

The benchmark is testing the performance of converting a number to a string using template literals with the `toString()` method.

**Approaches compared**

Similar to Test Case 1, there are two approaches compared:

1. **`toString()`**: Using the built-in `toString()` method to convert numbers to strings.
2. **`String()`**: Using the `String()` function to convert numbers to strings.

**Pros and Cons**

**Other considerations**

Using template literals ensures that the comparison is only between string conversions.

**Alternative approaches**

If you want to use a different approach, here are some alternatives:

* Using the `Number()` function instead of `String()`: This would require an extra step and might impact performance.
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js: These libraries provide utility functions that can be used for string conversions.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different pros and cons compared to the built-in methods.

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

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString()	0.0 Ops/sec
String()	33310.0 Ops/sec
``.toString()	964131.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs ``.toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString() vs String() vs ``.toString()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString()

String()

``.toString()

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):