Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs template string vs add to string 2

Tests:

String()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(i)); }
.toString()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i.toString()); }
template string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${i}`); }
add to string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i + ""); }
Number to Number via +
let nums = [], base = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0]; for(let i = 0; i < base.length; i++) { nums.push(+base[i]); }
String to Number via +
let nums = [], base = ['1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9', '0']; for(let i = 0; i < base.length; i++) { nums.push(+base[i]); }
String to Number via parseInt
let nums = [], base = ['1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9', '0']; for(let i = 0; i < base.length; i++) { nums.push(parseInt(base[i])); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
template string
add to string
Number to Number via +
String to Number via +
String to Number via parseInt

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	38276.6 Ops/sec
.toString()	497023.1 Ops/sec
template string	1232863.6 Ops/sec
add to string	899193.2 Ops/sec
Number to Number via +	13736742.0 Ops/sec
String to Number via +	6060011.5 Ops/sec
String to Number via parseInt	92866.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare four different methods for converting strings to numbers in JavaScript:

1.  `String()`: Using the built-in `String()` function to convert a number to a string.
2.  `.toString()`: Accessing the `toString` property of a number object.
3.  Template literals (`"template string"`): Using template literals (backticks) to convert a number to a string.
4.  Concatenation with a string literal (`"add to string"`).

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined as a separate benchmark, with the following characteristics:

*   Each test case involves creating an array `nums` and iterating over a range of numbers using a `for` loop.
*   Within each iteration, a number or its representation as a string is appended to the `nums` array.

**Comparison of Methods**

Here's a brief explanation of what's being tested for each method:

1.  `String()`: This test case verifies that calling `String()` on a number produces the correct result.
2.  `.toString()`: This test case checks if accessing the `toString` property on a number object results in the expected output.
3.  Template literals (`"template string"`): In this test case, template literals are used to convert numbers to strings. The benchmark measures how efficient this approach is compared to other methods.
4.  Concatenation with a string literal (`"add to string"`): This test case involves concatenating the number or its representation as a string using the `+` operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's an analysis of each method, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages:

1.  `String()`: This method is straightforward and efficient for converting numbers to strings. However, it might incur additional overhead due to function call.
2.  `.toString()`: Accessing the `toString` property on a number object is another efficient way to convert numbers to strings, with similar overhead as `String()`.
3.  Template literals (`"template string"`): Template literals are a convenient and readable way to perform string interpolation. However, their efficiency might not match that of other methods, especially for large datasets.
4.  Concatenation with a string literal (`"add to string"`): This approach can be less efficient than others because it creates multiple intermediate strings before producing the final result.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any external libraries. They are self-contained JavaScript code snippets designed specifically for this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There is no explicit usage of special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark definition. However, some test cases (e.g., template literals) rely on modern JavaScript features that might not be supported by older browsers or environments.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the execution time for each method across multiple browsers and devices. The test case with the lowest execution time is likely to be considered the winner in this comparison.

In summary, this benchmark provides an efficient way to compare the performance of different methods for converting numbers to strings in JavaScript, allowing developers to choose the most suitable approach for their specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs template string vs add to string 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs template string vs add to string vs Number to Number via + vs String to Number via + vs String to Number via parseInt

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

template string

add to string

Number to Number via +

String to Number via +

String to Number via parseInt

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):