Benchmark: String concatenation vs array join Performance:3

Tests:

String concatentation
var str = ""; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { str += "String concatenation. "; } return str;
Array join
var sArr = new Array(1000); for (var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { sArr[i] = "String concatenation. "; } return sArr.join("");
Array join (w/ push)
var sArr = []; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { sArr.push("String concatenation. "); } return sArr.join("");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String concatentation
Array join
Array join (w/ push)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.149 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String concatentation	167416.3 Ops/sec
Array join	31991.0 Ops/sec
Array join (w/ push)	27716.7 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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark measures the performance of two ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript: string concatenation, array join, and an alternative approach using `push` on an empty array. The test is designed to compare the execution speed of these methods.

**Options Compared**

1. **String Concatenation**: This method involves appending a new string to the end of an existing string using the `+=` operator or the concatenation operator (`+`).
2. **Array Join**: This method creates an array and pushes individual strings into it, then joins the strings together using the `join()` method.
3. **Alternative Approach with `push`**: This method creates an empty array and uses the `push()` method to add individual strings to the end of the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **String Concatenation**
	* Pros: simple, intuitive, and efficient for small datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to performance issues when dealing with large datasets or concatenating many strings.
		+ Creates temporary objects in memory, which can be a concern for garbage collection.
2. **Array Join**
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient for large datasets and can handle concurrent execution.
		+ Eliminates the need for intermediate string creation.
	* Cons:
		+ May have higher overhead due to array creation and iteration.
3. **Alternative Approach with `push`**
	* Pros: efficient for large datasets, as it avoids creating temporary strings or arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating an empty array, which can lead to memory allocation overhead.

**Library and Syntax Used**

In this benchmark, the following libraries and syntax are used:

* `join()`: a built-in JavaScript method for joining arrays of strings into a single string.
* `push()`: a method of arrays in JavaScript that adds one or more elements to the end of an array.
* No external libraries are required.

**Special JS Feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark, as it focuses on comparing simple concatenation methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches for string concatenation, consider the following:

* **StringBuilder**: a class that allows efficient and thread-safe manipulation of strings.
* **Template literals**: a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that provides a more readable way to concatenate strings.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward or widely supported as the methods compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

String concatenation vs array join Performance:3 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: String concatentation vs Array join vs Array join (w/ push)

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

String concatentation

Array join

Array join (w/ push)

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):