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

Tests:

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.toString().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
String()
.toString()
``.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.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different ways to convert a number to lowercase using JavaScript:

1. Using the `String()` function
2. Using the `.toString()` method (dot notation)
3. Using template literals (`''`)

**Options Compared**

Each test case compares the execution time of one of these options for a specific scenario: converting 500 repeated 100 times to lowercase.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **String() function**: This approach is relatively straightforward, as it uses the `String()` function to convert the number to a string and then calls `toLowerCase()` on that result.
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to converting the number to a string unnecessarily.
2. **.toString() method**: This approach uses the dot notation to call the `.toString()` method on the number, followed by calling `toLowerCase()` on the result.
	* Pros: Avoids unnecessary conversion of the number to a string.
	* Cons: May be less intuitive than using the `String()` function or template literals.
3. **Template Literals (`''`)**: This approach uses template literals to create a new string with the number and then calls `toLowerCase()` on that result.
	* Pros: Can be more readable and concise, especially for simple cases.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to creating a new string.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark might use internal browser APIs or built-in JavaScript functionality to measure execution times.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. All three options are standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches for converting numbers to lowercase, you could consider using:

* The `Number()` function (not relevant here, as it's not about conversion)
* The `parseInt()` and `parseFloat()` functions (not relevant here, as they're not about conversion)
* Other string manipulation methods or library functions (e.g., `lodash.string.prototype.toLowerCase()`)
* Using a different data type altogether (e.g., using a binary representation of the number)

However, for this specific benchmark, the three options being compared are sufficient to demonstrate the performance differences between these common approaches.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/118.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	2335046.0 Ops/sec
.toString()	2341641.8 Ops/sec
``.toString()	454736.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

``.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):