Benchmark: String - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 12, 123, 1234, 12345, 123456, 1234567, 12345678, 123456789];
var strNumbers = ["1", "12", "123", "1234", "12345", "123456", "1234567", "12345678", "123456789"];

Tests:

toString()
numbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
toString() on strings
strNumbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
String literals
numbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);
String literals on strings
strNumbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);
String()
numbers.forEach(n => String(n));
String() on strings
strNumbers.forEach(n => String(n));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString()
toString() on strings
String literals
String literals on strings
String()
String() on strings

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is tested in each benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare the performance of different approaches on their browsers. The current benchmark consists of six test cases that measure the performance of various string-related operations: `toString()`, `String()`, and using template literals (`${}`).

**Benchmark Definitions**

The provided JSON data defines two main sections:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: This section provides information about the benchmark being measured, such as its name, description, script preparation code, and HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case).
2. **Individual Test Cases**: This section lists six test cases that measure the performance of specific string-related operations.

**Test Case Explanations**

Here's a brief explanation of each test case:

1. **`toString()`**: Measures the performance of calling `toString()` on numeric values using the `forEach()` method.
2. **`toString() on strings`**: Similar to the previous test case, but measures the performance of calling `toString()` on string literals using the `forEach()` method.
3. **`String literals`**: Measures the performance of using template literals (`${}`) on numeric values within a `forEach()` loop.
4. **`String literals on strings`**: Similar to the previous test case, but measures the performance of using template literals (`${}`) on string literals within a `forEach()` loop.
5. **`String()`**: Measures the performance of calling `String()` on numeric values using the `forEach()` method.
6. **`String() on strings`**: Similar to the previous test case, but measures the performance of calling `String()` on string literals using the `forEach()` method.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries or JavaScript features that are not part of the standard language specification.

**Browser Comparison**

The latest benchmark results show that Chrome 95 is the fastest browser for all six test cases, with varying performance across different test cases. The exact rankings may depend on the specific implementation details and caching behavior of each browser.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizations for string-related operations, here are a few options to consider:

* Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of `forEach()`, as it might provide better performance.
* Utilizing `String.prototype.forEach()` or `Array.prototype.forEach.call()` to work around browser limitations.
* Investigating the use of WebAssembly (WASM) or other optimized JavaScript engines for improved performance.
* Considering the use of third-party libraries like FastJSON or js-stringify, which are optimized for string manipulation and might provide better performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant changes to your codebase or have trade-offs in terms of complexity, compatibility, or maintainability.

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/95.0.4638.69 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString()	6420153.5 Ops/sec
toString() on strings	8468623.0 Ops/sec
String literals	12313887.0 Ops/sec
String literals on strings	9138909.0 Ops/sec
String()	740127.2 Ops/sec
String() on strings	716435.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString() vs toString() on strings vs String literals vs String literals on strings vs String() vs String() on strings

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString()

toString() on strings

String literals

String literals on strings

String()

String() on strings

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):