Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Build String vs. Parse String
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Build by Concatenating vs Build by Template String vs Parse by Split vs Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = { parent: 'http://parents/123', child: 'A' } var key = 'http://parents/123|A'
Tests:
Build by Concatenating
var _key = obj.parent + '|' + obj.child
Build by Template String
var _key = `${obj.parent}|${obj.child}`
Parse by Split
var _splitted = key.split('|') var _parent = _splitted[0] var _child = _splitted[1]
Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)
var [_parent, _child] = key.split('|')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Build by Concatenating
Build by Template String
Parse by Split
Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Benchmark Overview** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares four approaches for building or parsing a string: concatenation, template strings, splitting with the `split()` method, and splitting with destructuring. **Approaches Compared** 1. **Build by Concatenating**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate two strings: `"http://parents/123" + '|' + "A"`. * Pros: Simple, widely supported. * Cons: Can be slow due to string creation and concatenation. 2. **Build by Template String**: This approach uses template literals (`${}`) to build the string: `var _key = ${obj.parent}|${obj.child}`. * Pros: Efficient and readable. * Cons: Requires modern JavaScript version support (ECMAScript 2015+). 3. **Parse by Split**: This approach splits the input string into two parts using the `|` character, then assigns each part to a variable. * Pros: Fast and efficient for large strings. * Cons: Can be slower than concatenation or template strings for small strings due to overhead of splitting and assigning. 4. **Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)**: This approach uses the `split()` method with destructuring to assign each part to two variables in a single statement: `var [_parent, _child] = key.split('|')`. * Pros: Fast, efficient, and concise. * Cons: Requires modern JavaScript version support (ECMAScript 2015+) and is only possible with destructuring. **Library** None of the approaches rely on an external library. The `split()` method is a built-in JavaScript function, and template literals are supported by most modern browsers. **Special JS Features or Syntax** The benchmark uses two features: 1. **Template literals**: Required for the "Build by Template String" approach. 2. **Destructuring assignment**: Used in the "Parse by Split (incl. destructuring)" approach to assign the split parts to multiple variables in a single statement. **Other Alternatives** If none of these approaches are suitable, other alternatives could be: 1. Using `substr()` or `substring()` methods for string manipulation. 2. Employing regular expressions for splitting and parsing strings. 3. Utilizing third-party libraries like Stringify or Format for more advanced string formatting options. In summary, the benchmark compares four approaches for building or parsing a string: concatenation, template strings, splitting with the `split()` method, and splitting with destructuring. Each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the use case.
Related benchmarks:
Object Creation: Bracket versus .DOT Notation
Foo bar bazz
join vs string + trim
'a string`.toString() vs `${'a string'}`
JSON.parse vs object literal
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?