Benchmark: to string methods

Tests:

toString
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
String
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
Template
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
String
Template

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString	51974.6 Ops/sec
String	557655.9 Ops/sec
Template	1084562.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different approaches to converting numbers to strings is an interesting benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents three test cases, each with its own script that converts the number 500 to string using different methods:

1. **toString**: The built-in `String()` function.
2. **String**: The dot notation (`num.toString()`) used to access a property on an object (in this case, the number itself).
3. **Template**: The template literal syntax (``${num}``).

**Options compared**

The three options being compared are:

1. **toString**: A built-in function that converts a value to a string.
2. **String**: An expression that uses dot notation to access a property on an object (in this case, the number itself).
3. **Template**: A syntax for creating strings with embedded expressions.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **toString**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if used in certain contexts (e.g., when the `String()` function is called on an object with no own properties).
2. **String**:
	* Pros: Can be useful for accessing properties on objects using dot notation.
	* Cons: Slower than `toString` and may have performance implications if used frequently.
3. **Template**:
	* Pros: Provides a convenient way to embed expressions in strings, making it easy to create dynamic content.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the creation of an intermediate string object.

**Library and purpose**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The template literal syntax (``${num}``) is used in one of the test cases. Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a way to create strings with embedded expressions using backticks (`). They allow you to insert values into a string using the `${expression}` syntax.

**Other alternatives**

In addition to the three options being tested, other approaches could be explored:

* Using `Number.toString()` or `String.prototype.valueOf()`
* Using a custom function to convert numbers to strings
* Using a different data structure, such as an array of strings, to store the result

It's worth noting that the test cases only focus on converting a single number (500) to string using the provided methods. In practice, you may want to explore more complex scenarios or edge cases when optimizing performance or implementing conversion functions.

Related benchmarks:

to string methods (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs String vs Template

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

String

Template

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):