Benchmark: string with + vs template literals vs String.concat 4 input

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name lkjasdl;fj la;sflk;asdjf l;kj l;aksdjfla;kjs lka;sdjf la;ksdjf l;aksdjfl ;askd l;aksjf als;kdjf la;skdjfl;aksdjfl;aksdfl;aksdjf l; l;aksdjf ;laskdjf l;aksdjf l;askdjfl;askdjf;laskdj fl;aksdjf las;kd fal;sdf al;skdfjla;ksdjfl;aksdjf la;skdjfla;ksdjfla;skdjfla;skdfjals;kdjfa;lskdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjal;skj a asd;lfkjasl;kd fl; kasdf l;askdj l;askdj ;ladskfja;lsdkfj al;sdkfj ;l asld;kfj as;ldkfja l;sdkfj al;skdfj as;ldkfj asl;dkf. l;asdkfj al;skdfj a;lkasdfj ;laksdfj a;sldkfj a;slasdflkj asl;dkfj asdl; asl;dkfj asl;dkfjasl;dkfj a;lsdfjla;skdfj al;sdkjf lk;sadf asl;kdfja s;ldkfj asl;dkfj als;kdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj as;lkdf. asldf asl;kdf als;dkf asld;kfjasl;dkfj asl;kdfaslkd fa;lskd aslk;dfj asl;dkfj als;dfkjasl;dkfj asl;kdfj als;kdfj asl;kdfj asl;kdf aslk;d fljasdfkjasldk;fja s;lkdfj al;skdfjal;ksdfj lak;sdf a;lskdfj l;askdfj l;askdfj a;lskdj alskdfja l;skdfj als;kdfj asd;lkfjasdl;kfasdjf al;skdfj a;lskdfj a;lskdfj als;kdfj al; as ldkfjas l;dkfj asl;dfajsl;kdfj asl;kdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj als;kdfj slkda asl;kdfj l;askdfj al;skdf alsk;df alsk;dfj as;lkdfj l;askdfj laskdf";
var id = "id name lkjasdl;fj la;sflk;asdjf l;kj l;aksdjfla;kjs lka;sdjf la;ksdjf l;aksdjfl ;askd l;aksjf als;kdjf la;skdjfl;aksdjfl;aksdfl;aksdjf l; l;aksdjf ;laskdjf l;aksdjf l;askdjfl;askdjf;laskdj fl;aksdjf las;kd fal;sdf al;skdfjla;ksdjfl;aksdjf la;skdjfla;ksdjfla;skdjfla;skdfjals;kdjfa;lskdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjal;skj a asd;lfkjasl;kd fl; kasdf l;askdj l;askdj ;ladskfja;lsdkfj al;sdkfj ;l asld;kfj as;ldkfja l;sdkfj al;skdfj as;ldkfj asl;dkf. l;asdkfj al;skdfj a;lkasdfj ;laksdfj a;sldkfj a;slasdflkj asl;dkfj asdl; asl;dkfj asl;dkfjasl;dkfj a;lsdfjla;skdfj al;sdkjf lk;sadf asl;kdfja s;ldkfj asl;dkfj als;kdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj as;lkdf. asldf asl;kdf als;dkf asld;kfjasl;dkfj asl;kdfaslkd fa;lskd aslk;dfj asl;dkfj als;dfkjasl;dkfj asl;kdfj als;kdfj asl;kdfj asl;kdf aslk;d fljasdfkjasldk;fja s;lkdfj al;skdfjal;ksdfj lak;sdf a;lskdfj l;askdfj l;askdfj a;lskdj alskdfja l;skdfj als;kdfj asd;lkfjasdl;kfasdjf al;skdfj a;lskdfj a;lskdfj als;kdfj al; as ldkfjas l;dkfj asl;dfajsl;kdfj asl;kdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj als;kdfj slkda asl;kdfj l;askdfj al;skdf alsk;df alsk;dfj as;lkdfj l;askdfj laskdf";

Tests:

plus
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"+id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"+id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"+id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
concat
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem",id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem",id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem",id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
iteral
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem ${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem ${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem ${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
plus
concat
iteral

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

It seems like you have provided a detailed output of a benchmarking tool, likely `benchmark` in JavaScript, with its configuration and test cases.

To answer your question, I'll focus on the execution times of each test case. Here's a summary:

1. **Concatenation** (`concat`):
	* Latest benchmark result: 36.70173645019531 executions per second (approx.)
2. **Literal concatenation** (`literal`):
	* Latest benchmark result: 37.289737701416016 executions per second (approx.)
3. **Plus operator** (`plus`):
	* Latest benchmark result: 38.235294342041016 executions per second (approx.)

Based on these results, it appears that the `+` operator is slightly faster than concatenation, and literal concatenation is similar to using a template string with `${}`.

Please note that these results are based on a single benchmarking run and may not reflect the overall performance of your application. Additionally, the execution times can vary depending on the specific use case, hardware, and other factors.

If you'd like to discuss further or have any questions about this output, feel free to ask!

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
plus	37.3 Ops/sec
concat	36.7 Ops/sec
iteral	38.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string with + vs template literals vs String.concat 4 input (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: plus vs concat vs iteral

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

plus

concat

iteral

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):