Benchmark: concatts - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

CELL_X= 1235
CELL_Y= 135

Tests:

moder concat
var cell_key = `${CELL_X}_${CELL_Y}`;
string concat
var cell_key = CELL_X + '_' + CELL_Y;
other
var cell_key = (CELL_X << 16) | CELL_Y;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moder concat
string concat
other

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided tests three different approaches for creating a string that combines two numeric constants, `CELL_X` and `CELL_Y`, into a single string representation. Each approach utilizes a different technique in JavaScript for string construction, and the performance of these methods is measured in terms of executions per second.

### Test Cases Overview

1. **Moderate Concatenation**: 
   ```javascript
   var cell_key = `${CELL_X}_${CELL_Y}`;
   ```
   This example uses a **template literal**, which is a feature of ES6 (ECMAScript 2015) that allows for easier string interpolation. Template literals are enclosed by backticks and can embed expressions within `${...}`.

**Pros**:
   - Readability: This method is often preferred for its clarity, especially when combining multiple variables or complex expressions.
   - Simplicity: It reduces the risk of errors associated with proper concatenation syntax.

**Cons**:
   - In some contexts, older JavaScript engines or environments may have slower performance with template literals, as it is a newer syntax and could require additional overhead.

2. **String Concatenation**:
   ```javascript
   var cell_key = CELL_X + '_' + CELL_Y;
   ```
   This approach uses the traditional string concatenation operator (`+`) to join the two cell values.

**Pros**:
   - Familiarity: This is a well-understood method, widely used and supported across all JavaScript versions.
   - Performance: For simple concatenations, this method can be as fast or faster than template literals in some environments.

**Cons**:
   - Readability: When concatenating multiple items, it can lead to less clarity and more cluttered code compared to template literals.
   - Need for careful formatting: Each component must be explicitly defined, which can introduce errors if one forgets to include a separator or a variable.

3. **Bitwise OR Operation**:
   ```javascript
   var cell_key = (CELL_X << 16) | CELL_Y;
   ```
   In this case, instead of string concatenation, a bitwise operation is being used to combine the two numbers. This operation shifts `CELL_X` left by 16 bits and merges it with `CELL_Y` using the bitwise OR operator. This approach assumes that both `CELL_X` and `CELL_Y` are integers and that the result would be a numeric value rather than a string.

**Pros**:
   - Speed: Bitwise operations can often be very fast due to their low-level execution nature, especially when dealing with integers.
   - Memory Efficiency: It may use less memory than generating string representations if the intention is purely numeric.

**Cons**:
   - Misinterpretation: This approach does not produce a string, which means it does not fulfill the initial requirement of combining the two cell values as a string. This can lead to confusion if the intention was to create a user-readable key.
   - Reduced readability: This code is less intuitive compared to the other methods and could be harder for others to understand instantly.

### Results Interpretation

From the benchmark results, we can observe the execution metrics for each of the approaches tested across a desktop Linux environment using Firefox 131:

- **String Concatenation**: 
  - **Executions Per Second**: 1,761,320,192.0
  - This approach yielded the highest performance, making it the most efficient method in this test.

- **Bitwise OR Operation**: 
  - **Executions Per Second**: 1,701,938,560.0
  - This method was slightly slower than the string concatenation but still performed well. However, it’s important to note its output differs fundamentally from the others.

- **Moderate Concatenation (Template Literal)**: 
  - **Executions Per Second**: 77,935,984.0
  - This was the slowest method in the benchmark, suggesting that the syntactic sugar and readability benefits come at a performance cost.

### Conclusion

In summary, this benchmark explores different methods of combining strings in JavaScript, highlighting the trade-offs between performance and readability. While string concatenation offers the best performance in this case, each method serves different purposes. The choice of which method to use in a real-world application may depend on the specific context, code readability preferences, and performance requirements. Alternative approaches could include using libraries such as Lodash for templating or manipulating strings and even frameworks that manage string manipulations in their workflows, but the foundational JavaScript methods remain versatile and effective.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
moder concat	77935984.0 Ops/sec
string concat	1761320192.0 Ops/sec
other	1701938560.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

concatts (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moder concat vs string concat vs other

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

moder concat

string concat

other

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):