Benchmark: toString vs template literals + array of random strings

Script Preparation code:

function getRandom() {
  return Math.random() * (999_999_999_999 - 100_000_000_000) + 1_000_000_000;
}

var array = Array.from({length: 1_000_000}).map(() => getRandom())

var number = 123_456_789_000

Tests:

random + .toString()
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array[0].toString() }
random + template literal
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { `${array[0]}` }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
random + .toString()
random + template literal

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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. `toString vs template literals + array of random strings`: This test case compares the execution time of converting an array element to a string using the `toString()` method versus using template literals (`${}`) with an array of random numbers.
2. `random + .toString()`: This is another test case that seems to be incomplete, as it doesn't specify what needs to be added to the random number (e.g., converted to a string). We'll assume this is meant to compare the execution time of calling `toString()` on a random number without any additional operation.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `toString()`: A method that converts an object to its primitive string representation.
2. Template literals (`${}`): A feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows embedding expressions inside string literals using backticks.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`toString()`**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported, easy to use, and well-understood by most developers.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than template literals for large data sets or complex expressions.
* **Template Literals (`${}`)**:
	+ Pros: More expressive and flexible than `toString()`, especially for complex expressions. It's also a feature that encourages more readable code.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported in older browsers (before ES6) or JavaScript engines, which might affect performance.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's possible that some libraries are used internally by the testing framework or JavaScript engine being evaluated.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) template literals (`${}`), which requires support for this feature to be enabled. If an older JavaScript engine or browser doesn't support ES6 features, it might not execute these test cases accurately.

**Other Alternatives**

If the `toString()` method is too slow, other alternatives could include:

* Using a library like `lodash` with its `toString` function.
* Implementing a custom string conversion function using a language-specific approach (e.g., C++ for performance-critical parts).
* Optimizing the code using techniques like caching or memoization.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide significant performance improvements and could introduce additional complexity to the codebase.

Related benchmarks:

toString vs template literals + array of random strings (version: 0)

add random numbers

Comparing performance of: random + .toString() vs random + template literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

random + .toString()

random + template literal

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):