Benchmark: number to string: String() vs toString() vs template

Tests:

.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}`); }
concat
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push("".concat(i)); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.toString()
template string
concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.toString()	447253.0 Ops/sec
template string	783443.9 Ops/sec
concat	346192.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The `number to string` benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for converting numbers to strings: using the `.toString()` method, template literals (template), and concatenation with an empty string (`" "`).

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **`.toString()`**: Converts a number to a string using the `.toString()` method.
2. **Template String**: Uses template literals (`${i}`) to convert a number to a string.
3. **Concatenation**: Concatenates an empty string (`" "`). `concat(i)` is used to convert a number to a string.

**Library and Purpose**

The `template` approach uses JavaScript's template literal feature, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) and create a new string with the values of those expressions.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The template approach utilizes a special syntax called template literals, which is not widely supported by older browsers. This means that users may need to use a transpiler like Babel or a newer browser to run this benchmark.

**Comparison of Options**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

* `.toString()`:
	+ Pros: Wide support across older browsers, no special syntax required.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to method call overhead.
* Template String (`${i}`):
	+ Pros: Faster execution time due to fewer method calls, more readable code.
	+ Cons: Requires newer JavaScript features and/or a transpiler for compatibility with older browsers.
* Concatenation:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Slowest due to repeated concatenations.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting numbers to strings might include:

* Using `String()` (e.g., `String(i)`): This is similar to `.toString()`, but with a function call overhead.
* Using `Number.toString.call(i)`: This method uses the `call()` method to invoke the `toString()` method on the `i` object.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

1. Template String execution time: 783443.9375 executions per second
2. `.toString()` execution time: 447253.03125 executions per second
3. Concatenation execution time: 346192.4375 executions per second

These results indicate that the template string approach is the fastest, followed by `.toString()`, and then concatenation.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, this benchmark compares the performance of three approaches for converting numbers to strings in JavaScript: `.toString()`, template literals, and concatenation. The template literal approach is faster due to fewer method calls, but it requires newer JavaScript features or a transpiler for compatibility with older browsers.

Related benchmarks:

number to string: String() vs toString() vs template (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .toString() vs template string vs concat

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.toString()

template string

concat

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):