Benchmark: Convert Number to String random

Tests:

string n
String(Math.random() / 100);
to string
(Math.random() / 100).toString();
empty string plus n
""+(Math.random() / 100)
n plus empty string
(Math.random() / 100)+"";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string n
to string
empty string plus n
n plus empty string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark. A benchmark is a set of code that is executed multiple times to measure its performance. In this case, there are no specific script or HTML preparation codes, which means the benchmark definitions are isolated and do not rely on external dependencies.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. `string n`: This test case converts a random number (generated using `Math.random() / 100`) to a string using the built-in `String` function.
2. `to string`: Similar to the previous test case, but uses the `.toString()` method instead of the `String` function.
3. `empty string plus n`: This test case concatenates an empty string (`""`)) with a random number (generated using `Math.random() / 100`) using template literals (`"""+(Math.random() / 100)`).
4. `n plus empty string`: Similar to the previous test case, but uses template literals in reverse order (`(Math.random() / 100)+\"\";`).

**Options Compared**

The options compared are:

* Using the `String` function versus `.toString()` method for converting a number to a string.
* Concatenating a number with an empty string using template literals (`"""+(...)` versus `(...)+"";`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Using the `String` function:**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable
		- Can be more efficient for large strings (since it avoids creating a new string object)
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as flexible or powerful as other methods
* **Using the `.toString()` method:**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and flexible
		- Can be used with other methods, such as `padStart` or `padEnd`
	+ Cons:
		- May require more code to achieve the same result as `String` function
* **Template literals (Concatenation):**
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and maintainable
		- Can be used for complex string concatenations
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient as other methods, especially for large strings

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features mentioned in the provided benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarks may use external libraries or specific features to make the tests more accurate or representative.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write similar benchmarks, you could try using different methods for converting numbers to strings, such as:

* Using `Number.toString()` instead of `.toString()`
* Using `String.fromCharCode` and `Math.floor` to create a string from an integer
* Using other programming languages or frameworks that provide better support for string manipulation

However, keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or representative as the original benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string n	4787678.5 Ops/sec
to string	6489044.5 Ops/sec
empty string plus n	15890921.0 Ops/sec
n plus empty string	15748863.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Convert Number to String random (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string n vs to string vs empty string plus n vs n plus empty string

Created: 9 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

string n

to string

empty string plus n

n plus empty string

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):