Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
single-quote-vs-double-quote-vs-backtick
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
single-quote vs double-quote vs backtick
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
single-quote
'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.'
double-quote
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
backtick
`Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.`
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
single-quote
double-quote
backtick
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
7 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/140.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 140 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=617084" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
single-quote
205673312.0 Ops/sec
double-quote
197377456.0 Ops/sec
backtick
199950576.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of three different quote types in JavaScript: single quotes, double quotes, and backticks (template literals). The test cases use a long string of text to measure the execution time of assigning each type of quote to a variable. **Test Case Breakdown** Each test case has two main components: 1. **Benchmark Definition**: This is the code that defines the benchmark. For each test case, there's only one line of code: * Single quotes: `'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...` * Double quotes: `"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..."` * Backticks (template literals): ``${"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..."}`` 2. **Test Name**: This is the name given to each test case, which corresponds to the type of quote being tested. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the execution time of assigning each type of quote to a variable using the following options: * Single quotes (`'...'`) * Double quotes (`"..."`) * Backticks (template literals) (``${...}``) These options are compared in terms of their performance, with the fastest option being declared as the winner. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each option: * **Single Quotes**: Pros - lightweight, easy to read. Cons - may not be as efficient due to the overhead of parsing the string. * **Double Quotes**: Pros - widely supported, good for string concatenation. Cons - may lead to quotes within quotes issues. * **Backticks (Template Literals)**: Pros - concise, modern syntax, and better performance compared to single or double quotes. Cons - relatively new feature, might not be supported by older browsers. **Library/Function Used** There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but template literals rely on the `${}` syntax, which is a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other quote types or comparison benchmarks, here are some alternatives: * **JSON data**: MeasureThat.net has a benchmark for comparing the performance of different JSON data formats. * **Regular expressions**: The website has a benchmark for testing the performance of regular expression engines. * **DOM manipulation**: Another example might be comparing the performance of different DOM manipulation methods (e.g., `document.querySelector()`, `document.getElementsByTagName()`). Keep in mind that these alternatives are not directly related to quote types, but rather showcase other aspects of JavaScript performance. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Ponder
Count words. regexp vs split
Regex split vs Literal split
RegEx vs For Loop LONG
string with + vs template literals vs String.concat 4 input
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?