Benchmark: toString vs string literal vs + empty string

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 12, 123, 1234, 12345, 123456, 1234567, 12345678, 123456789];
var strNumbers = ["1", "12", "123", "1234", "12345", "123456", "1234567", "12345678", "123456789"];

Tests:

toString a number
numbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
string literal a number
numbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);
add empty string to number
numbers.forEach(n => n + "");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString a number
string literal a number
add empty string to number

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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON:**

The benchmark is designed to compare three different approaches for converting numbers to strings:

* `toString()`
* Using a string literal (`"..."`)
* Adding an empty string (`+ ""`)

The script preparation code defines two arrays, `numbers` and `strNumbers`, which contain numbers with varying lengths.

**Individual Test Cases:**

Each test case consists of a single benchmark definition in the format `"numbers.forEach(n => expression);"`. Here's what each test case does:

1. **toString()**: Converts each number to a string using the `toString()` method.
2. **String Literal**: Converts each number to a string by wrapping it in double quotes (`"..."`).
3. **Add Empty String**: Converts each number to a string by adding an empty string (`+ ""`) to the number.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. `toString()`: This approach is simple and straightforward, as it directly converts the number to a string.
	* Pros: Easy to read and understand, efficient in terms of execution time.
	* Cons: May be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of calling a method.
2. String Literal (`"..."`): This approach involves creating a new string object for each number.
	* Pros: Can be faster than `toString()` since it avoids the method call overhead.
	* Cons: Creates an additional object on the heap, which can impact memory usage and garbage collection.
3. Add Empty String (`+ ""`): This approach is similar to using a string literal but involves adding a small empty string to the number instead of wrapping it in quotes.
	* Pros: Similar performance benefits as string literals but avoids creating an additional object on the heap.
	* Cons: May be slightly slower than `toString()` due to the addition operation.

**Library Usage:**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, some JavaScript engines (like V8) may use internal libraries and optimizations that affect the performance of these approaches.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None of the provided test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic number-to-string conversions.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarking tools, some popular options include:

1. Microbenchmark.net (similar to MeasureThat.net)
2. Benchmark.js
3. jsbench
4. perf-benchmark

These tools offer various features and configurations to help you optimize your JavaScript code for performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool ultimately depends on your specific use case, target audience, and personal preferences.

Related benchmarks:

toString vs string literal vs + empty string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString a number vs string literal a number vs add empty string to number

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString a number

string literal a number

add empty string to number

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):