Benchmark: url interpolation vs toString

Script Preparation code:

var something = new URL("https://localhost:3000")

Tests:

url-interpolation
`${something}`
toString
something.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
url-interpolation
toString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
url-interpolation	11097739.0 Ops/sec
toString	15058211.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions, each comparing different approaches to achieve a specific result in JavaScript.

**Benchmark Definition**

The first part is the overall benchmark definition:
```json
{
  "Name": "url interpolation vs toString",
  "Description": null,
  "Script Preparation Code": "var something = new URL(\"https://localhost:3000\")",
  "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```
Here's what's being tested:

* The `Script Preparation Code` initializes a new `URL` object, which is then used to create a dynamic string using template literals.
* The `Html Preparation Code` is empty, suggesting that the benchmark focuses solely on JavaScript performance.

**Individual Test Cases**

Two test cases are defined within the benchmark:
```json
[
  {
    "Benchmark Definition": "`${something}`",
    "Test Name": "url-interpolation"
  },
  {
    "Benchmark Definition": "something.toString()",
    "Test Name": "toString"
  }
]
```
These two test cases compare different ways to generate a dynamic string:

* `url-interpolation`: uses template literals (``${something}``) to insert the value of `something` into a string.
* `toString`: uses the `toString()` method to convert the `URL` object to a string.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. **Template Literals (url-interpolation)**: This approach uses backticks (`) and `${}` to insert values into a string. It's a convenient way to create dynamic strings in JavaScript.
2. **toString() method**: This approach converts the `URL` object to a string using the `toString()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Template Literals (url-interpolation)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to read, concise, and flexible.
	+ Cons: Might not be as efficient or optimized for performance in all browsers or situations.
* **toString() method**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient or optimized for performance in some cases, especially when used with `join()` or other methods.
	+ Cons: Can lead to less readable code and might require additional processing steps.

**Library Usage**

There is no library being explicitly used in this benchmark. The `URL` object is a built-in JavaScript API.

**Special JS Features**

The template literals syntax (``${}``) is the only special feature being tested here. It's a relatively modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, you might consider:

* Using string concatenation with `+` instead of template literals.
* Using a library like Underscore.js or Lodash for string manipulation.
* Comparing the performance of different string encoding schemes, such as UTF-8 vs. ISO-8859-1.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark!

Related benchmarks:

url interpolation vs toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: url-interpolation vs toString

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

url-interpolation

toString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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