Benchmark: test performance of string types

Tests:

single quotes
'hi I\'m a peanut'
double quotes
"hi I'm a peanut"
backticks
`hi I'm a peanut`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
single quotes
double quotes
backticks

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, titled "test performance of string types", aims to measure the performance differences between single quotes, double quotes, and backticks when used as string literals in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three options:

1. **Single Quotes (`'')**: The simplest way to enclose a string in JavaScript.
2. **Double Quotes (`"`)**: A common method for enclosing strings, which allows for escaping and formatting.
3. **Backticks (``)`: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, backticks provide a more modern and flexible way to enclose strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Single Quotes (`'')**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: Limited escape sequences (e.g., no escaping backslashes or newline characters).
2. **Double Quotes (`"`)**:
	* Pros: Supports escape sequences, making it a popular choice for JSON data and strings with special characters.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., single quotes inside double-quoted strings can be interpreted as the start of another string).
3. **Backticks (``)]]:
	* Pros: Provides an escape sequence (`\`) and supports template literals, making it a powerful tool for string interpolation.
	* Cons: May have compatibility issues with older browsers or JavaScript engines.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no libraries are used. However, if you're interested in exploring libraries that compare string performance, some popular options include:

1. **Benchmarking Libraries**: Libraries like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark.js provide a simple way to write and run benchmarks.
2. **String Manipulation Libraries**: Libraries like String.prototype.escape() (not part of the ECMAScript standard) or modern implementations like String.prototype.escapeRegExp() can be used to measure string manipulation performance.

**Special JS Features**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features, such as async/await, let, const, or modernized syntax. However, it's worth noting that using backticks (``) introduces a modern feature that might be supported by newer browsers and JavaScript engines.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarks or tools to test string performance in JavaScript, consider the following:

1. **Benchmarking Platforms**: Websites like Benchmark.js, Microbenchmark.js, or js-benchmark provide a simple way to write and run benchmarks.
2. **String Performance Tools**: Tools like StringPerf or StringBench offer pre-built benchmarks for various string-related operations.

In summary, the benchmark "test performance of string types" compares the execution speed of single quotes, double quotes, and backticks when used as string literals in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which string type to use in their code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/124.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
single quotes	213399824.0 Ops/sec
double quotes	227210448.0 Ops/sec
backticks	218636432.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test performance of string types (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: single quotes vs double quotes vs backticks

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

single quotes

double quotes

backticks

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):