Benchmark: 12321321 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

t1
customer_no = ""; chk_no = "1232132132112" + ","; customer_no += chk_no;
t2
customer_no = ""; chk_no = "1232132132112" + ","; customer_no.concat(chk_no);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
t1
t2

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where two test cases are compared: one using string concatenation (`+`) and another using the `concat()` method.

**String Concatenation (`+`)**

In this approach, strings are concatenated by simply appending one string to another. The code is:
```javascript
customer_no = "";
chk_no      = "1232132132112" + ", ";
customer_no += chk_no;
```
The pros of this approach are:

* Simple and easy to understand.
* No additional function call overhead, as it's just a simple assignment.

However, the cons are:

* String performance can be slower due to the overhead of creating new strings for each concatenation.
* Not all browsers optimize string concatenation well, leading to inconsistent results.

**Concat() Method**

In this approach, the `concat()` method is used:
```javascript
customer_no = "";
chk_no      = "1232132132112" + ", ";
customer_no.concat(chk_no);
```
The pros of this approach are:

* More efficient than string concatenation in some cases, as it avoids creating new strings.
* Optimized by most browsers for better performance.

However, the cons are:

* Additional function call overhead compared to simple string concatenation.
* May still incur slower performance due to string creation and garbage collection.

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, no external library is used. However, the `+` operator in JavaScript is optimized by most browsers to be faster than the `concat()` method for strings.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses basic JavaScript concepts, such as variables, string concatenation, and function calls (for the `concat()` method).

**Other Alternatives**

To improve performance, alternative approaches could be explored:

* **Using a StringBuilder**: Instead of creating new strings on each concatenation, a StringBuilder-like object can be used to efficiently build and modify strings.
* **Using `String.prototype.slice()` or `String.prototype.substring()`**: These methods can be more efficient than string concatenation for large strings.

**Benchmark Result Analysis**

The latest benchmark result shows that:

* Test case "t2" (using the `concat()` method) has a higher execution rate of 1201.15 executions per second.
* Test case "t1" (using string concatenation (`+`)) has a lower execution rate of 9285.42 executions per second.

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on the specific browser, device platform, and operating system used to run the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

12321321 (version: 0)

121

Comparing performance of: t1 vs t2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

t1

t2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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