Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
String caching
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Cached vs Not cached
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Cached
const string = 'Hello world!'; const array = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { array.push(string); }
Not cached
const array = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { array.push('Hello world!'); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Cached
Not cached
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
llama3.1:latest
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the explanation. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is called "String caching". This suggests that we're comparing different approaches to handling repeated string values in JavaScript code. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **Cached**: In this case, a string constant (`string = 'Hello world!'`) is created and then pushed into an array 1000 times. The string value is stored once in the `string` variable. 2. **Not cached**: Here, the same string value is directly pushed into an array 1000 times without storing it as a separate constant. **Latest Benchmark Results** The latest results show the performance (Executions Per Second) of both test cases on Chrome 109 browser: 1. **Cached**: ~314,344 executions per second 2. **Not cached**: ~309,414 executions per second **What's being tested?** In essence, we're testing whether creating a string constant and reusing it (`Cached`) is faster than repeatedly creating the same string value without caching (`Not cached`). **Library or feature used?** None mentioned in this benchmark. **Pros/Cons of different approaches:** 1. **Cached (String Constant)**: * Pros: + Reuses a previously stored string value, reducing repeated string creation. + Might be faster due to reduced overhead. * Cons: + Requires an extra variable for the cached string. 2. **Not cached (Repeated String Creation)**: * Pros: + Simpler code without additional variables. * Cons: + Creates the same string value 1000 times, which might be slower due to repeated overhead. **Other considerations and alternatives:** * In modern JavaScript engines, string creation is relatively fast. However, if you're dealing with extremely long strings or performing heavy concatenation, caching a string constant can lead to better performance. * Another alternative could be using a more efficient data structure, like a Set or a Map, which can provide faster lookup times for repeated values. In summary, this benchmark measures the performance difference between creating a string constant and reusing it versus repeatedly creating the same string value without caching. The results suggest that storing a string constant (`Cached`) might lead to slightly better performance in JavaScript code.
Related benchmarks:
TextEncoder vs String hash v2
Encode vs Blob vs length
Encode vs Blob on large string
wdwdagserg
JS String '+' same v.s. different strings 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?