Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
String(num) vs num.toString() vs ""+num
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
String(num) vs num.toString() vs ""+num
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
String(num)
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
num.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
""+num
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>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
String(num)
num.toString()
""+num
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):
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark defines three variations of creating strings in JavaScript: 1. `String(num)`: Using the `String()` constructor to convert a number to a string. 2. `num.toString()`: Calling the `toString()` method directly on a number. 3. `"\"+num" (Template literals): Using template literals with backticks (`) to concatenate a string and a number. **Options Compared:** The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches: Pros and Cons: * **String(num)**: + Pros: Creates a new string object, which can be useful if you need to manipulate or store the string. + Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object. * **num.toString()**: + Pros: Calling `toString()` on a number is a built-in method that returns a primitive value, making it faster than creating a new object. + Cons: Returns a primitive value, which may not be desirable if you need to manipulate the string as an object. * `"\"+num"` (Template literals): + Pros: Creates a new string by concatenating the template literal with the number, and is generally faster than using `String()` or `toString()`. + Cons: Limited support in older browsers, and may not be desirable if you need to work with primitive values. **Library/Language Features Used:** None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that template literals (the `"\"+num"` approach) were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Special JS Feature/Syntax Used:** Template literals (`"\"+num"`). While not a special feature per se, they are a relatively recent addition to the JavaScript language. **Other Considerations:** The benchmark measures the performance of these approaches on a specific test case, where 100 iterations are performed with a large number (500) being converted and stored in an array. The results should be taken as representative of this specific scenario, rather than a general comparison of all string creation methods in JavaScript. **Alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring other approaches to creating strings in JavaScript, consider: * Using the `StringBuilder` class from the `util` module (Node.js-specific). * Implementing a simple string builder class yourself. * Using a library like `string-pool` for more efficient string creation. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and may not be as performant as the approaches tested in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString
+string vs Number vs parseInt
String to int vs int to string 2
Implicit vs parseFloat vs Number string to num
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString yoyo
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?