Benchmark: clsx string vs array vs object

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/classnames/2.2.6/index.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://unpkg.com/clsx@1.1.0/dist/clsx.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'style';
var obj = {
 	 'style-2': true,
  	 'style-3': false,
 	 'style-4': true,
}
var cond2 = true && 'style-2'
var cond3 = false && 'style-3'
var cond4 = true && 'style-4'
var arr = ['style-5', 'style-6']

Tests:

clsx str + obj
let result = window.clsx(str, obj)
clsx str + cond
let result = window.clsx(str, cond2, cond3, cond4)
Array based
function ts(...args){ let template = []; args.forEach(arg => { if (typeof arg === 'string') { template.push(arg); return; } if (arg.join) { template = [...template, ...arg]; return; } let entries = Object.entries(arg); if (entries.length) { entries.forEach(entry => { if(entry[1]) template.push(entry[0]) }) } }) return template.join(' '); } let result = ts(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')
String based (return struct)
function ts(...args){ let template = ''; args.forEach(arg => { if (typeof arg === 'string') { template += ' '+arg; return; } if (arg.join) { arg.forEach((e) => { template += ' ' + e; }) return; } let entries = Object.entries(arg); if (entries.length) { entries.forEach(entry => { if(entry[1]) template += ' ' + entry[0] }) } }) return template; } let result = ts(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')
String based (if-else struct)
function ts(...args){ let template = ''; args.forEach(arg => { if (typeof arg === 'string') { template += ' '+arg; } else if (arg.join) { arg.forEach((e) => { template += ' ' + e; }) } else { let entries = Object.entries(arg); if (entries.length) { entries.forEach(entry => { if(entry[1]) template += ' ' + entry[0] }) } } }) return template; } let result = ts(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')
Entries, filter, map, join
let objStyle = Object.entries(obj).filter((style)=>style[1]).map(style => style[0]).join(' '); let arrComb = arr.join(' ') let result = `${str} ${objStyle} ${arrComb} test classname`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clsx str + obj
clsx str + cond
Array based
String based (return struct)
String based (if-else struct)
Entries, filter, map, join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

clsx str + cond

47.9M/s

clsx str + obj

28.8M/s

String based (return struct)

16.0M/s

String based (if-else struct)

13.2M/s

Entries, filter, map, join

9.2M/s

Array based

8.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ clsx str + cond	47,948,220 Ops/sec
clsx str + obj	28,805,584 Ops/sec
String based (return struct)	16,031,536 Ops/sec
String based (if-else struct)	13,237,689 Ops/sec
Entries, filter, map, join	9,175,399 Ops/sec
Array based	8,447,717 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark defines four test cases, each comparing different approaches for using the `clsx` library or creating custom string templating functions.

**What is being compared?**

The benchmark tests the performance of different methods for creating strings with conditions:

1. **clsx syntax**: Using the `clsx` library to conditionally include strings.
2. **Array-based approach**: Creating a template by iterating over an array and concatenating strings.
3. **String-based (if-else struct)**: Using an if-else structure to conditionally include strings in a template.
4. **String-based (return struct)**: Returning a string with conditions, where each part is checked separately.
5. **Entries, filter, map, join**: Using `Object.entries`, `filter`, `map`, and `join` to create a string.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark results show the performance of each approach across multiple executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for different browsers and devices. The top-performing approaches will be those that execute faster in various scenarios.

**Approach Analysis**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **clsx syntax**: This approach is likely to be the most concise and readable, but might incur some performance overhead due to function calls.
2. **Array-based approach**: This method can be efficient when dealing with large datasets, as it avoids string concatenation overhead. However, it requires extra memory for storing the array.
3. **String-based (if-else struct)**: This approach is straightforward but may lead to slower performance due to repeated checks and string concatenations.
4. **String-based (return struct)**: Similar to the if-else struct, this method uses separate conditionals for each part of the string, which might lead to slower execution.
5. **Entries, filter, map, join**: This approach leverages native JavaScript methods to create a new array with filtered and transformed elements, then joins them into a string. It's likely to be one of the faster approaches due to its use of optimized functions.

**Takeaways**

The benchmark highlights the importance of choosing an efficient approach for creating strings with conditions in JavaScript. The array-based approach and the `Entries, filter, map, join` method are likely to be top performers, while the more verbose methods (clsx syntax, string-based if-else struct, and return struct) might incur performance overhead.

When optimizing string templating code, consider factors like:

* String concatenation vs. creating new arrays
* Function calls vs. native method usage
* Conditionals vs. separate condition checks

By understanding the trade-offs between these approaches, you can write more efficient JavaScript code for common use cases.

clsx string vs array vs object (version: 0)

Compare CLSX syntax

Comparing performance of: `clsx str + obj vs clsx str + cond vs Array based vs String based (return struct) vs String based (if-else struct) vs Entries, filter, map, join`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

clsx str + obj

clsx str + cond

Array based

String based (return struct)

String based (if-else struct)

Entries, filter, map, join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

clsx string vs array vs object (version: 0)

Compare CLSX syntax

Comparing performance of: clsx str + obj vs clsx str + cond vs Array based vs String based (return struct) vs String based (if-else struct) vs Entries, filter, map, join

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

clsx str + obj

clsx str + cond

Array based

String based (return struct)

String based (if-else struct)

Entries, filter, map, join

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: `clsx str + obj vs clsx str + cond vs Array based vs String based (return struct) vs String based (if-else struct) vs Entries, filter, map, join`