Benchmark: Native JS: Array.join strings (prepared) vs template literals vs String.concat

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";
var arr = ["", ':', 0, ', ', "", ':', 'name', 0]

Tests:

join
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { arr[0] = id; arr[2] = arr[7] = i; arr[4] = name; let result = arr.join(); }
concat
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ':', i, ', ', name, ':', 'name', i); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${id}:${i}, ${name}:name${i}`; }
native concat
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = id + ':'+ i.toString() + ', '+':' +'name'+ i.toString(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
concat
using template literals
native concat

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, aims to determine the most efficient way to concatenate strings in JavaScript. The benchmark tests four different approaches: `native concat`, `using template literals`, `concat`, and `join`.

**Approaches Comparison**

1. **Native Concat**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings.
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slow due to string interpolation, may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., when concatenating strings with different lengths).
2. **Using Template Literals**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, template literals provide a more concise and readable way to concatenate strings.
	* Pros: Efficient, easy to read, and maintainable.
	* Cons: May have slower performance due to the complexity of parsing template literals.
3. **Concat**: This approach uses the `concat` method to concatenate strings.
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, but may be less readable than other approaches.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., when concatenating arrays).
4. **Join**: This approach uses the `join` method on an array of strings.
	* Pros: Efficient, easy to use, and concise.
	* Cons: May be less readable than other approaches.

**Library Considerations**

In this benchmark, none of the approaches rely on specific libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may provide additional optimizations or features for certain string concatenation methods.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the approaches in this benchmark utilize special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the performance data for each approach:

* **Native Concat**: 63714.875 executions per second
* **Using Template Literals**: 50664.07421875 executions per second
* **Concat**: 40316.859375 executions per second
* **Join**: 12200.3212890625 executions per second

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for string concatenation in JavaScript include:

* Using `String.prototype +` operator: This approach is similar to the native concat method but provides a more concise syntax.
* Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` or other array methods: These approaches can be efficient, but may require additional setup and understanding of array methods.

In conclusion, this benchmark demonstrates that the choice of string concatenation approach can significantly impact performance. The results suggest that using template literals is a good trade-off between efficiency, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: Array.join strings (prepared) vs template literals vs String.concat (version: 0)

find the best solution for concatenate strings

Comparing performance of: join vs concat vs using template literals vs native concat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

concat

using template literals

native concat

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):