Benchmark: toString anumber vs string literal a number

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 a number
numbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
string literal a number
numbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString a number
string literal a number

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.45 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString a number	5254315.0 Ops/sec
string literal a number	9835934.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring performance differences between two approaches:

1. Converting numbers to strings using `toString()`.
2. Using template literals with a single number inside (`${n}`).

**Options compared**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

* Option A: `numbers.forEach(n => n.toString());` - This approach uses the `toString()` method to convert each number to a string.
* Option B: `numbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);` - This approach uses template literals with a single number inside (`${n}`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons of each approach:

* **Option A (toString())**
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster, as it's a built-in method that can be optimized by the browser.
		- More explicit, as it clearly shows what's being done to the number.
	+ Cons:
		- May require additional memory allocation for the created string objects.
* **Option B (Template Literals)**
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster than `toString()`, as template literals can be optimized by the browser.
		- More concise and readable, as it eliminates the need for a separate function or method call.
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance issues if the template literal is too complex or has many nested expressions.

**Library and purpose**

The `forEach()` method used in both options is a part of the ECMAScript standard and is widely supported by modern browsers. It's used to iterate over an array and perform an action on each element.

No external libraries are required for this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

Template literals (`${n}`) were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a more readable way of inserting expressions inside strings, eliminating the need for concatenation using `+` or other methods.

The `toString()` method is a built-in method that converts its argument to a string representation. It's also part of the ECMAScript standard and widely supported by modern browsers.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, here are some examples:

* Using `Array.prototype.map()` instead of `forEach()`: This would involve calling `map()` on each element in the array instead of using a `forEach` loop.
* Using string concatenation (`+`) or other methods like `String(n)` or `n.toString()`: These approaches would eliminate the use of template literals and `toString()` altogether.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these alternatives might be negligible, especially for small datasets. However, if you're working with large datasets or high-performance requirements, it's essential to consider these options when optimizing your code.

Related benchmarks:

toString anumber vs string literal a number (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString a number vs string literal a number

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString a number

string literal a number

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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