Benchmark: Object creation vs String concat

Tests:

Object creation - small strings
const a = '123456sgfdsgbsddsfgbsdfgsfdgsddfgsfgdffdsgsd' const b = 'egwergewgwergbewrgberberwbrbrgbgrebrgrtbretn' console.log({ a: a, b: b })
String format - small strings
const a = '123456sgfdsgbsddsfgbsdfgsfdgsddfgsfgdffdsgsd' const b = 'egwergewgwergbewrgberberwbrbrgbgrebrgrtbretn' console.log(`${a}-${b}`);
Object creation - bigstrings
const a = 'a'.repeat(100000) const b = 'b'.repeat(100000) console.log({ a: a, b: b })
String format - big strings
const a = 'a'.repeat(100000) const b = 'b'.repeat(100000) console.log(`${a}-${b}`)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object creation - small strings
String format - small strings
Object creation - bigstrings
String format - big strings

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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests three different approaches to concatenate or create objects with large strings:

1. **Object creation**: Creating an object with two properties using the `const a = '...'` syntax.
2. **String format**: Using template literals (`${a}-${b}`) to concatenate two strings.
3. **Big string repetition**: Repeating a small character string (either "a" or "b") 100,000 times.

**Comparison**

Each test case measures the performance of one approach:

1. Object creation
2. String format
3. Big string repetition

The benchmark is executed with different inputs and device configurations to obtain a range of execution counts per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Approaches Compared**

Here's a brief explanation of each approach:

* **Object creation**: This approach creates an object with two properties, where the values are large strings. The performance is measured by creating, initializing, and logging this object.
* **String format**: Template literals provide a more efficient way to concatenate strings than using the `+` operator. This approach repeats small character strings 100,000 times and concatenates them using template literals.
* **Big string repetition**: This approach creates two large strings (either "a" or "b") by repeating a single character string 100,000 times. The performance is measured by creating and logging these strings.

**Pros/Cons**

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

1. **Object creation**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, can be useful for more complex data structures.
	* Cons: Requires creating an object with multiple properties, which can lead to overhead in performance.
2. **String format**:
	* Pros: Efficient way to concatenate strings, reduces the number of concatenations required.
	* Cons: Requires using template literals, which may not be as familiar to some developers.
3. **Big string repetition**:
	* Pros: Allows for efficient reuse of existing code, eliminates the need for concatenation.
	* Cons: May lead to high memory usage if dealing with very large strings.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use external libraries.

**Special JS Features**

No special JavaScript features are mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases.

Related benchmarks:

Object creation vs String concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object creation - small strings vs String format - small strings vs Object creation - bigstrings vs String format - big strings

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object creation - small strings

String format - small strings

Object creation - bigstrings

String format - big strings

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):