Benchmark: string concat bla

Script Preparation code:

var names = ["result_", "report_", "session", "result_", "report_", "session","result_", "report_", "session","result_", "report_", "session","result_", "report_", "session","result_", "report_", "session","result_", "report_", "session"];
var map = new Map();

for (var i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
    var key = names[i] + (i + 1);
    var value = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1001); // Generate random value between 0 and 1000
    map.set(key, value);
}

var map2 = {};
map2["result_"] = new Set([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]);
map2["report_"] = new Set([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]);
map2["session"] = new Set([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]);

Tests:

string + id concact
for (var i = 0; i < 333; i++) { const key = `$result_${i}`; const result = map[key]; } for (var i = 0; i < 333; i++) { const key = `$report_${i}`; const result = map[key]; } for (var i = 0; i < 333; i++) { const key = `$session_${i}`; const result = map[key]; }
first string then id
for (var i = 0; i < 333; i++) { const result1 = map["result_"]; if (result1) { const result = result1.get(i); } } for (var i = 0; i < 333; i++) { const result1 = map["report_"]; if (result1) { const result = result1.get(i); } } for (var i = 0; i < 333; i++) { const result1 = map["session_"]; if (result1) { const result = result1.get(i); } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string + id concact
first string then id

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions, each with a unique approach to testing string concatenation:

1. **string + id concat**: This test case uses the `+` operator for string concatenation, where the result is stored in a variable. The test repeats this operation 333 times.
2. **first string then id**: This test case uses the `$` symbol as a template literal (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to embed expressions within strings. It also accesses elements from two separate sets (`result_` and `report_`) using the `get()` method on the `Set` objects.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

1. **String concatenation with `+` operator**: This is a simple, traditional approach to string concatenation.
2. **Template literals with `$` symbol**: Template literals are a more modern way of embedding expressions within strings, introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Pros and Cons**

* **String concatenation with `+` operator**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating intermediate strings, which are then concatenated.
* **Template literals with `$` symbol**:
	+ Pros: More efficient than string concatenation, as it avoids creating intermediate strings. Also, provides a more readable way of embedding expressions within strings.
	+ Cons: Requires modern JavaScript engines (ECMAScript 2015+) to support template literals.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

1. **Set**: A built-in JavaScript data structure for storing unique values.
2. **Map**: A built-in JavaScript data structure for storing key-value pairs.

These libraries are used to store and access elements from the `result_` and `report_` sets, respectively.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses ECMAScript 2015's template literals (`$` symbol) to embed expressions within strings. This is a modern JavaScript feature that allows for more expressive and efficient string manipulation.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **String concatenation with `StringBuilder`**: Some JavaScript engines provide `StringBuilder` classes or similar implementations that can optimize string concatenation.
2. **Interpolation with `innerHTML`**: You could use the `innerHTML` property to concatenate strings, but this approach is generally less efficient and more prone to security issues.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as widely supported or optimized as the benchmark's current implementation.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its approaches!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string + id concact	9588.1 Ops/sec
first string then id	32021.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string concat bla (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string + id concact vs first string then id

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string + id concact

first string then id

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):