Benchmark: String concatenation vs array join 100000

Script Preparation code:

var str = "";
var i;
var sArr = [];

Tests:

String concatentation
for (i = 100000; i > 0; i--) { str += "String concatenation. "; }
Array join
for (i = 100000; i > 0; i--) { sArr[i] = "String concatenation. "; } str = sArr.join("");
Array join (w/ push)
for (i = 100000; i > 0; i--) { sArr.push("String concatenation. "); } str = sArr.join("");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String concatentation
Array join
Array join (w/ push)

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 llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which aims to compare the performance of different approaches for string concatenation.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of three test cases:

1. **String Concatenation**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings.
2. **Array Join**: This approach uses the `join()` method to concatenate strings from an array.
3. **Array Join (w/ push)**: This approach is similar to Array Join, but instead of using the `array.push()` method to add elements to the array, it directly assigns values to the array's indices.

**Comparison**

The three approaches are compared in terms of performance, measured by the number of executions per second. The results show that:

* **Array Join (w/ push)** is significantly slower than both **String Concatenation** and **Array Join**, with a lower executions per second value.
* **Array Join** performs better than **String Concatenation**, but still not as efficient as concatenating strings directly.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **String Concatenation**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward approach; no overhead from creating an array or performing additional operations.
	* Cons: Can lead to slow performance for large strings due to the creation of intermediate strings.
2. **Array Join**:
	* Pros: More efficient than String Concatenation for large strings, as it avoids creating intermediate strings.
	* Cons: Requires creating an array and then using `join()` to concatenate its elements, which can incur additional overhead.
3. **Array Join (w/ push)**:
	* Pros: None apparent; seems like a variant of Array Join with no clear benefits or drawbacks.
	* Cons: Significantly slower than both String Concatenation and Array Join.

**Library**

None of the approaches rely on any external libraries, making them suitable for use in most JavaScript environments.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the provided test cases exploit any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers often provide optimized implementations of these operations, which can affect benchmark results.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to string concatenation might include:

1. **Using template literals**: A newer approach to string formatting that can be more efficient and readable.
2. **Using `StringBuilder` or similar libraries**: These libraries are designed specifically for string manipulation and can provide better performance than JavaScript's built-in methods.
3. **Using a dedicated string concatenation library**: Libraries like jQuery's `stringify()` method or external string concatenation libraries might offer optimized implementations or additional features.

Keep in mind that the specific approach chosen often depends on the use case, personal preference, and project requirements.

Related benchmarks:

String concatenation vs array join 100000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String concatentation vs Array join vs Array join (w/ push)

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String concatentation

Array join

Array join (w/ push)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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