Benchmark: string concat + join vs unshift + join

Script Preparation code:

var el = 'test';
var arr = ['foo', 'bar'];

Tests:

string concat + join
el + arr.join(',')
unshift + join
arr.unshift(el); arr.join(',');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string concat + join
unshift + join

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 the provided JSON and benchmark results to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two ways of concatenating strings in JavaScript:

1. Using the `+` operator for string concatenation (`el + arr.join(',')`)
2. Using the `unshift()` method followed by the `join()` method on an array (`arr.unshift(el) && arr.join(',')`)

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing these two approaches because they are commonly used in JavaScript development and have different performance characteristics.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **String concatenation using `+` operator:**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to read and understand
		+ Fewer lines of code
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to slower performance due to the creation of temporary strings
2. **Using `unshift()` followed by `join()`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster because it avoids creating temporary strings
		+ More flexible, as it allows for adding elements to an array before concatenating
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to more complex code if not used carefully

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the comparison of two common string concatenation approaches.

**Library Used**

None of the provided benchmarks use a specific library.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Data size: How large are the strings and arrays involved?
* Browser support: Are there any browser-specific optimizations or quirks that might affect performance?
* Platform: Is this benchmark running on desktop, mobile, or another platform?

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string concatenation in JavaScript include:

1. Using `template literals` (introduced in ES6): This method is more efficient and readable than the `+` operator approach.
2. Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` to concatenate strings: This method avoids creating temporary strings and can be more concise.

```javascript
// Template literal example
const result = `${el} ${arr.join(',')}`;

// Array.prototype.reduce() example
const arr = ['foo', 'bar'];
const result = arr.reduce((acc, curr) => acc + curr);
```

Keep in mind that the choice of concatenation method depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:124.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/124.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string concat + join	42014636.0 Ops/sec
unshift + join	5546.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string concat + join vs unshift + join (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string concat + join vs unshift + join

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string concat + join

unshift + join

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):