Benchmark: string plus operator 2

Script Preparation code:

var s1 = 'asd';
var s2 = 'asdasd';
var s3 = 'asdasdasd';
var sum = '';

Tests:

small string 120 times
for (let i = 0; i < 120; i++) { sum = sum + s1; }
medium string 60 times
for (let i = 0; i < 60; i++) { sum = sum + s2; }
big string 40 times
for (let i = 0; i < 40; i++) { sum = sum + s3; }
small string 50 times
for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) { sum = sum + s1; }
small string 10 times
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) { sum = sum + s1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
small string 120 times
medium string 60 times
big string 40 times
small string 50 times
small string 10 times

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!

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the experiment being conducted. In this case, the experiment involves measuring the performance of adding strings together using the `+` operator.

Here's what we're testing:

* Three string variables (`s1`, `s2`, and `s3`) with varying lengths (small, medium, and big)
* Four different test cases:
	+ Small string repeated 10 times
	+ Medium string repeated 60 times
	+ Big string repeated 40 times
	+ Another small string repeated 50 times

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of adding strings together using the `+` operator. There are two main approaches:

1. **Chaining**: Adding strings together in a single operation, e.g., `sum = sum + s1;`
2. **Chunking**: Breaking down the string addition into multiple operations, e.g., `sum = ''; sum += s1;`

**Pros and Cons**

* Chaining:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can lead to a large number of intermediate strings being created, which can slow down performance.
* Chunking:
	+ Pros: Reduces memory allocation overhead by creating only one intermediate string.
	+ Cons: Requires additional logic for concatenating the chunks together.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some browsers (like Chrome) may use internal libraries or built-in functions to optimize string concatenation. In this case, we can assume that the browser's optimizer is handling the concatenation internally.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature of JavaScript called **variable hoisting**, which allows variables declared outside the `for` loop to be initialized before the loop starts. This is why `var sum = '';` is executed before the first iteration of the loop.

**Other Alternatives**

If we wanted to write this benchmark using a different approach, we could consider:

* Using the `String.prototype.concat()` method instead of concatenating strings with the `+` operator.
* Using an array or buffer to store the string chunks and then joining them together at the end.
* Using a library like `concat-stream` to optimize string concatenation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code, and it's unlikely they would yield significantly better performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
small string 120 times	24513.1 Ops/sec
medium string 60 times	57207.0 Ops/sec
big string 40 times	81769.4 Ops/sec
small string 50 times	40988.6 Ops/sec
small string 10 times	337426.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string plus operator 2 (version: 0)

big string vs chunks plus

Comparing performance of: small string 120 times vs medium string 60 times vs big string 40 times vs small string 50 times vs small string 10 times

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

small string 120 times

medium string 60 times

big string 40 times

small string 50 times

small string 10 times

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):