Benchmark: String() vs toString

Script Preparation code:

var n = 100

Tests:

String
String(n)
.toString
n.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String
.toString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmarking framework provided by MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches for converting an integer value `n` to a string:

1. Using the `String()` function (e.g., `String(n)`).
2. Using the `.toString()` method (e.g., `n.toString()`).

In other words, the benchmark measures the performance of these two approaches when converting an integer to a string.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two options:

1. **`String()`**: This function converts its argument to a string by creating a new string object and copying the characters from the original value into it.
2. **`.toString()`**: This method converts its own context (i.e., `this`) to a string. In this case, since `n` is an integer variable, calling `.toString()` on it will convert the integer to a string.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**`String()`**

Pros:

* Generally considered faster than `.toString()`, as it avoids method lookup and potentially overhead from method calls.
* Can be more efficient for small values or when the resulting string needs to be modified frequently.

Cons:

* Requires an additional function call, which can introduce overhead.
* May not be suitable for very large values of `n`, as creating a new string object can lead to increased memory allocation and copying.

**`.toString()`**

Pros:

* Typically faster than calling a separate `String()` function, as it avoids the extra function call and method lookup.
* Can be more efficient for larger values of `n`, as it only requires a single method call and no string creation.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for small values or when the resulting string needs to be modified frequently, due to the potential overhead of method calls.
* Can be slower than calling `String()` directly on large values, if the method call overhead outweighs the benefits of avoiding string creation.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also considers the browser and device platform used for each test run. This is likely done to ensure that the results are representative of a wide range of use cases and environments.

**Library usage (none)**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark, so there's nothing to report on this front.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

None mentioned.

**Alternative approaches**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for converting integers to strings, here are a few options:

1. **`parseInt()` with radix 10**: This can be faster than `String()` or `.toString()`, as it only requires a single method call and no string creation.
2. **Binary encoding**: Converting an integer to binary and then concatenating the bytes can be efficient for very large values of `n`. However, this approach may not be suitable for all use cases, as it can lead to performance issues with certain character encodings.
3. **Custom implementation**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might consider implementing a custom function for converting integers to strings. This could potentially offer better performance or control over the conversion process.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may not be suitable for all use cases and may require additional considerations for correctness and reliability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String	8436990.0 Ops/sec
.toString	23137852.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String() vs toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String vs .toString

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String

.toString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):