Benchmark: Convert Number to String

Script Preparation code:

var n = 1;

Tests:

string n
String(n);
to string
n.toString();
empty string plus n
""+n
n plus empty string
n+"";

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.

Let's break down what's happening in this benchmark and explain the different options being compared.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a JSON object that contains information about the test case. In this case, there are two relevant fields:

* `Name`: This is the name of the benchmark, which is "Convert Number to String".
* `Script Preparation Code`: This is a JavaScript code snippet that sets up some variables before running the actual test. In this case, it simply assigns the value 1 to a variable named `n`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: This field is empty, indicating that no HTML preparation code is needed.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four test cases, each defined by a JSON object with two relevant fields:

* `Benchmark Definition`: This specifies the JavaScript code that will be executed as part of the benchmark. The different values represent different approaches to converting an integer (`n`) to a string.
	+ `"String(n);"`: Converts the number directly using the built-in `String()` function.
	+ `"n.toString();"`: Uses the `toString()` method on the variable `n` to convert it to a string.
	+ `"\"\"+n"`: Concatenates an empty string with `n` using the `+` operator. Note that this is equivalent to simply converting `n` to a string, but is used here as a distinct approach.
	+ `"n+\"\";"`: This is similar to the previous option, but uses the assignment operator (`=`) instead of the concatenation operator (`+`). Again, this is equivalent to converting `n` to a string.

**Options Being Compared**

The different approaches being compared are:

* Direct conversion using `String(n);`
* Conversion using the `toString()` method on `n`
* Concatenation with an empty string: `"\"\"+n"`
* Assignment operator-based concatenation: `"n+\"\";"`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief rundown of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Direct conversion using `String(n);`**: This is likely to be the fastest and most efficient way to convert an integer to a string, as it uses a built-in function. However, it may incur some overhead due to the function call.
* **Conversion using the `toString()` method on `n`**: This approach is similar to direct conversion, but avoids the overhead of a function call. It's likely to be faster than the concatenation approaches.
* **Concatenation with an empty string: `"\"\"+n"`**: This approach is simple and easy to understand, but can be slower than the other two options due to the overhead of creating a new string object and appending to it.
* **Assignment operator-based concatenation: `"n+\"\";"`**: This approach is similar to the previous one, but uses an assignment operator instead of a concatenation operator. It's likely to be faster than the concatenation approach with a new string object.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries beyond the built-in JavaScript functions and operators.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's typically considered standard JavaScript. No ES6+ features, no async/await, etc.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using a different approach or library, some alternatives could include:

* Using a library like `ms-performance-integer` which provides optimized integer arithmetic and conversion functions.
* Implementing the conversions manually using bitwise operations instead of relying on built-in functions like `String()` or `toString()`.
* Using a different concatenation strategy, such as using the `join()` method or a custom implementation.
* Adding additional test cases that incorporate other string manipulation functions or operators.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely change the nature and scope of the benchmark, so it's worth carefully considering what goals you want to achieve when choosing an alternative approach.

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	11000427.0 Ops/sec
to string	27465438.0 Ops/sec
empty string plus n	26569526.0 Ops/sec
n plus empty string	26417812.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Convert Number to String (version: 1)

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

Created: 8 years 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):