Benchmark: string concat: concat vs +

Script Preparation code:

var str1 = 'lorem ipsum', str2 = "dolor sit amet", str3 = "consectetur adipiscing elit";
var res_concat = '', res_plus = '';

Tests:

concat
res_concat = str1.concat(str2, str3);
+
res_plus = str1 + str2 + str3

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

8.4M/s

concat

7.8M/s

View exact numbers

✓ +: 8,433,944 ops/sec
• concat: 7,821,474 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat
+

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/143.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

12.7M/s

concat

8.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ +	12,731,383 Ops/sec
concat	8,152,909 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two string concatenation methods in JavaScript:

1. Using the `+` operator (e.g., `str1 + str2 + str3`)
2. Using the `concat()` method (e.g., `str1.concat(str2, str3)`)

**Comparison Options:**
The benchmark is comparing the following options:

* Using the `+` operator for string concatenation
* Using the `concat()` method with three arguments for string concatenation

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

**Using the `+` Operator:**

Pros:

* Simple and easy to read
* No need to declare a variable before using it (unless you want to preserve its value)

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues if used excessively, as it creates temporary strings and requires additional memory allocations.
* May not be as efficient for large strings or string concatenations.

**Using the `concat()` Method:**

Pros:

* More flexible than the `+` operator, allowing you to concatenate strings with variable numbers of arguments.
* Can be more efficient than using the `+` operator, especially when dealing with large strings or multiple concatenations.

Cons:

* Requires declaring a variable before using it (unless you want to reassign its value).
* May have performance issues if not used correctly, as it creates temporary arrays and requires additional memory allocations.

**Other Considerations:**

* Both approaches assume that the input strings are in a format that can be concatenated without any errors.
* The benchmark does not consider other factors that might affect performance, such as the size of the strings, the frequency of concatenation, or the specific JavaScript engine being used.

**Library and Special JS Features:**
There is no library mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `concat()` method is a built-in method in JavaScript that allows you to concatenate two or more strings into one.

**Other Alternatives:**

* For larger string concatenations or performance-critical code, other methods like using `Array.prototype.join()` or `String.prototype.repeat()` might be more efficient.
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides the `concat` function as part of its utility belt, can also offer improved performance and flexibility.

Overall, this benchmark helps developers understand the relative performance of two common string concatenation methods in JavaScript. By comparing these approaches, developers can make informed decisions about how to optimize their code for specific use cases.

string concat: concat vs + (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `concat vs +`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

concat

+

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

string concat: concat vs + (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concat vs +

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

concat

+

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `concat vs +`