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
gemma2:9b
, generated one year ago):
This benchmark tests the performance of creating an array of strings in JavaScript. **Options Compared:** * **Cached (test case 1):** A string variable (`string`) is created and stored first. Then, within a loop, this pre-existing string is repeatedly added to an array (`array`). This approach leverages string caching. * **Not Cached (test case 2):** The string literal `'Hello world!'` is directly pushed into the array in each iteration of the loop. **Pros and Cons:** * **Cached Approach:** * **Pro:** Potentially faster because creating a new string object on every iteration can be expensive. Caching the string reduces repeated string creation overhead. * **Con:** Introduces extra memory allocation for the `string` variable upfront, which might have a negligible impact in this scenario but could become significant for larger strings or many iterations. * **Not Cached Approach:** * **Pro:** Simpler code, no need to pre-declare and store the string. * **Con:** Potentially slower due to repeated string object creation on each loop iteration. **Library Usage:** None in this benchmark. It uses standard JavaScript language features. **Special JS Features or Syntax:** None are particularly notable. It's a straightforward demonstration of how strings are handled and manipulated in JavaScript. **Other Alternatives:** * **String Templates (ES6):** For more complex string constructions, using template literals can be more readable and efficient. They avoid repeated concatenation operations. ```javascript const array = []; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { array.push(`Hello world!`); // Using template literal } ``` * **Arrays' `fill()` Method:** If the array needs to be filled with a specific value repeatedly, JavaScript's `fill()` method can be more efficient than loops. Let me know if you have any other benchmarks you'd like me to analyze!
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?