Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs + string

Script Preparation code:

var data = 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890;

Tests:

String()
console.log(String(data));
.toString()
console.log(data.toString());
+ string
console.log(data + '');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
+ string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:146.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/146.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 146 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	101546.6 Ops/sec
.toString()	100009.6 Ops/sec
+ string	99944.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the execution performance of three different approaches for converting a large integer to a string: using the `String()` function, the `.toString()` method, and the `+` operator with an empty string.

**Test Case Description**

Each test case measures the time it takes to execute a specific JavaScript statement that involves converting the provided integer `data` to a string. The statements are:

1. `console.log(String(data));`: This approach uses the built-in `String()` function to convert the integer to a string.
2. `console.log(data.toString());`: This approach uses the `.toString()` method of the integer object to convert it to a string.
3. `console.log(data + '');`: This approach uses the `+` operator with an empty string to convert the integer to a string.

**Options Compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their execution performance, measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **String() function**: This approach is straightforward and easy to read. However, it may be less efficient than other methods because it involves a separate function call.
2. **.toString() method**: This approach is concise and can be more efficient than the `String()` function because it avoids an extra function call. However, it relies on the integer object having a `.toString()` method, which might not be the case for all integers.
3. **+ operator with empty string**: This approach is likely to be the fastest but also the most readable and maintainable among the three options.

**Library Used (if applicable)**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or browsers might optimize integer conversions differently due to their internal implementation details.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test case does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is normally available in JavaScript. It only uses standard language constructs and built-in methods.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for converting integers to strings could include:

1. Using a library like `bignumber.js` that provides optimized large integer arithmetic.
2. Implementing a custom conversion function using bitwise operations (e.g., `data >>> 0;`) on systems that support this feature.
3. Using a string formatting method like `String.format()` or `printf()` (if available).

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be as readable, maintainable, or efficient as the standard approaches used in the test case.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code:
```javascript
var data = 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890;
```
Creates a large integer variable `data` and assigns it to the global scope. This value is then used as input for the benchmarking test cases.

**Benchmark Results Interpretation**

The provided benchmark results show that, in this specific test case, the `+ string` approach outperforms the other two approaches by a significant margin (approximately 4x faster). The `.toString()` method appears to be slightly slower than the `String()` function.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs + string (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs + string

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

+ string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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