Benchmark: parseInt vs toString vs string literal vs + empty string vs String constructor

parseInt vs toString vs string literal vs + empty string vs String constructor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `parseInt a number vs parseInt a string vs toString a number vs toString a string vs string literal a number vs string literal a string vs add empty string to number vs add empty string to string vs String constructor on a number vs String constructor on a string`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

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:

parseInt a number
numbers.forEach(n => parseInt(n, 10));
parseInt a string
strNumbers.forEach(n => parseInt(n, 10));
toString a number
numbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
toString a string
strNumbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
string literal a number
numbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);
string literal a string
strNumbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);
add empty string to number
numbers.forEach(n => n + "");
add empty string to string
strNumbers.forEach(n => n + "");
String constructor on a number
numbers.forEach(n => String(n));
String constructor on a string
strNumbers.forEach(n => String(n));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt a number
parseInt a string
toString a number
toString a string
string literal a number
string literal a string
add empty string to number
add empty string to string
String constructor on a number
String constructor on a string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

parseInt a number

109.9M/s

add empty string to number

109.7M/s

string literal a number

109.5M/s

add empty string to string

96.0M/s

string literal a string

45.7M/s

String constructor on a string

32.3M/s

toString a number

27.0M/s

toString a string

25.9M/s

String constructor on a number

20.6M/s

parseInt a string

11.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ parseInt a number	109,923,440 Ops/sec
add empty string to number	109,673,256 Ops/sec
string literal a number	109,509,896 Ops/sec
add empty string to string	95,952,936 Ops/sec
string literal a string	45,735,916 Ops/sec
String constructor on a string	32,321,870 Ops/sec
toString a number	26,995,610 Ops/sec
toString a string	25,914,776 Ops/sec
String constructor on a number	20,568,506 Ops/sec
parseInt a string	11,348,308 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of various JavaScript operations on numbers and strings, specifically:

1. Converting numbers to integers using `parseInt()`
2. Converting numbers to strings using `toString()` or template literals (`${n}`)
3. Adding an empty string to a number
4. Creating a string from a number using the `String()` constructor

**Options Being Compared**

There are four main options being compared:

A) `parseInt(n, 10)` (converting a string to an integer)
B) `n.toString()` (converting a number to a string)
C) `${n}` (template literal with a number as its value)
D) `n + ""` (adding an empty string to a number)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

A) `parseInt(n, 10)`:

Pros: Fast conversion from string to integer
Cons: Can be slower than other approaches for large numbers or strings

B) `n.toString()`:

Pros: Fast conversion from number to string
Cons: May not work as expected for very large numbers due to string size limits

C) `${n}` (template literal):

Pros: Fast and efficient way to create a string from a number
Cons: Requires modern JavaScript engines that support template literals

D) `n + ""`:

Pros: Simple and straightforward way to add an empty string to a number
Cons: May be slower than other approaches due to the addition operation

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some of these operations may rely on underlying libraries or engines.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The template literal syntax (`${n}`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. It allows embedding expressions inside string literals. The `String()` constructor and the addition operation (`n + ""`) are standard JavaScript operators.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a library like `parse-int` or `string-parser` to convert numbers to integers
* Using a function to create a string from a number, such as `function toString(n) { return n.toString(); }`
* Using a different template literal syntax, such as `${n} + ""`

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark.