Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs ``

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
String concatenation
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
String concatenation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	151473.4 Ops/sec
.toString()	1779626.5 Ops/sec
String concatenation	3979090.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents three individual test cases that compare different approaches to convert an integer value to a string in JavaScript:

1. Using the `String()` function
2. Using the `.toString()` method
3. Using template literals (string concatenation)

Each test case creates an array `nums` and pushes a repeated number of values, either converted using one of these methods or a combination of them.

**Options compared**

The three options are compared in terms of their performance, measured by the number of executions per second (`ExecutionsPerSecond`) on a specific browser and device platform (Chrome 119 on Windows Desktop).

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`String()` function**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and relatively fast.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods for large numbers or complex strings.
2. **`.toString()` method**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for most use cases.
	* Cons: Can produce unexpected results if used with non-numeric values (e.g., NaN, Infinity).
3. **Template literals (string concatenation)**:
	* Pros: Readable, efficient, and suitable for most string operations.
	* Cons: May be slower than `.toString()` for very large strings or in critical performance paths.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions explicitly use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that template literals are a relatively modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS features or syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the provided benchmark definitions.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code for each test case is empty (`null`). This suggests that MeasureThat.net may be using a default setup or configuration for these tests, or they might be intentionally left blank to focus on the performance comparison between the three approaches.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative string conversion methods, here are a few examples:

* Using `parseInt()` and then converting the result to a string: `nums.push(parseInt(num) + '');`
* Using `Buffer` and encoding the number as a hexadecimal string: `const buffer = Buffer.alloc(8); buffer.writeUInt32BE(num); nums.push(buffer.toString('hex'));`
* Using a third-party library like `lodash` for string manipulation: `nums.push(lodash.string.escape(null, num));`

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward or efficient as the original three approaches and should only be considered for specific use cases or performance-critical code paths.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs `` (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs String concatenation

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

String concatenation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):