Benchmark: String vs template string

Tests:

Template
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { const str = `Test string with long text to check perfomance`; }
String
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { const str = "Test string with long text to check perfomance"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template
String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:146.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/146.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 146 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Template	2377047.2 Ops/sec
String	2054325.8 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of using strings versus template literals in JavaScript. Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allow you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create formatted strings.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **String**: Using traditional string concatenation with the `+` operator.
2. **Template**: Using template literals, which allows you to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**String:**

* Pros:
	+ Wide browser support (even older browsers may not support template literals).
	+ Easy to implement if you're familiar with traditional string concatenation.
* Cons:
	+ Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating a new string object on each iteration.

**Template:**

* Pros:
	+ Faster performance since it avoids creating a new string object on each iteration.
	+ More readable and easier to maintain, especially for complex formatting scenarios.
* Cons:
	+ Requires support for ES6 template literals, which might not be supported in older browsers.

**Library Use**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. It's purely focusing on comparing the performance of string concatenation versus template literals.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses a special feature: **template literals**, which was introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create formatted strings. The syntax is `const str = `${expression}`;`, where `expression` can be any valid JavaScript expression.

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance-critical code, especially in a browser environment, consider the following:

* Avoid unnecessary object creation and reusing existing objects when possible.
* Use built-in methods like `String.prototype.repeat()` or `Array.prototype.map()` instead of loops for repeated operations.
* Profile your code with tools like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector to identify performance bottlenecks.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarks, consider the following options:

1. **Math Operations**: Compare the performance of basic arithmetic operations (e.g., addition, multiplication, exponentiation) using different methods.
2. **DOM Manipulation**: Test the performance of manipulating DOM elements, such as creating and deleting nodes, or updating element attributes.
3. **Web Storage**: Benchmark the performance of storing and retrieving data in web storage APIs like `localStorage` or `sessionStorage`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might be more suitable for specific use cases or performance-critical code paths.

Related benchmarks:

String vs template string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Template vs String

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Template

String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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