Benchmark: backticks vs toString speed test

Tests:

toString
const key = Date.now().toString();
backticks
const key = `${Date.now()}`;

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

backticks

9.3M/s

toString

8.9M/s

View exact numbers

✓ backticks: 9,344,926 ops/sec
• toString: 8,878,030 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
toString
backticks

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/140.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 140 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

backticks

28.1M/s

toString

23.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ backticks	28,063,610 Ops/sec
toString	23,065,890 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `toString()` method versus template literals (backticks) for converting a timestamp to a string. The test case includes two individual benchmarks:

1. `toString`: Measures the speed of converting a timestamp to a string using the `toString()` method.
2. `backticks`: Measures the speed of converting a timestamp to a string using template literals (backticks).

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark is comparing two options for string conversion:

1. **`toString()`**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that converts an object to a string by concatenating its properties and values.
2. **Template Literals (Backticks)**: Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows you to create strings with embedded expressions using backticks (`). The `backticks` approach is often considered more readable and efficient than the `toString()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**`toString()`**

Pros:

* Widely supported across older browsers
* Simple to implement

Cons:

* Less readable due to concatenation
* May be slower due to string creation overhead

**Template Literals (Backticks)**

Pros:

* More readable and concise syntax
* Often faster than `toString()`
* Supports more expressive features like interpolation and array expansion

Cons:

* Not supported in older browsers that don't have ES6 or later support
* Requires JavaScript engine support for backticks, which may not be the case on all platforms

**Library and Special Features**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines, like V8 in Chrome, use a custom parser to optimize template literals performance.

**Test Case Analysis**

The test case uses two individual benchmarks with different string conversion approaches:

1. `toString`: This benchmark measures the speed of converting a timestamp to a string using the `toString()` method.
2. `backticks`: This benchmark measures the speed of converting a timestamp to a string using template literals (backticks).

Both benchmarks use the same input: the current timestamp (`Date.now()`). The test results show that the `backticks` approach is generally faster than the `toString()` method.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are some options:

* **RegExp**: You can also convert a string to uppercase using regular expressions. However, this approach is often less efficient and more complex than template literals or the `toUpperCase()` method.
* **String formatting**: Another alternative is to use string formatting methods like `String.prototype.format()` (not widely supported) or libraries like Moment.js for date formatting.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs, so it's essential to evaluate them based on your specific requirements.

backticks vs toString speed test (version: 0) Benchmark.js

backticks vs toString speed test

Comparing performance of: `toString vs backticks`

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

toString

backticks

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

backticks vs toString speed test (version: 0) Benchmark.js

backticks vs toString speed test

Comparing performance of: toString vs backticks

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

toString

backticks

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 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: `toString vs backticks`