Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
To string conversion
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toString(); vs Concat str vs Template string
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var num = 5;
Tests:
toString();
var str = num.toString();
Concat str
var str = num + "";
Template string
var str = `${num}`;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toString();
Concat str
Template string
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is testing three different approaches to convert an integer value `num` (initially set to 5) to a string: 1. `toString()` 2. String concatenation (`+ ""`) 3. Template literals (`${num}`) Each approach is represented by a separate test case, and the benchmark measures how many executions per second each approach can handle. **Options compared** The options being compared are: * `toString()`: converts an integer to a string using the built-in `toString()` method. * String concatenation: uses the `+` operator to concatenate a string with an empty string (`""`), effectively converting the integer to a string. * Template literals: uses template literals (the syntax `${expression}`) to convert the integer to a string. **Pros and cons of each approach** Here are some pros and cons for each approach: * `toString()`: + Pros: straightforward, widely supported, and efficient. + Cons: can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of calling a method. * String concatenation (`+ ""`): + Pros: simple and widely supported, but can lead to performance issues if not used carefully. + Cons: less efficient than `toString()` or template literals, as it involves creating an intermediate string object. * Template literals (`${num}`): + Pros: concise and readable, provides a more expressive way of formatting strings. + Cons: may be slower due to the overhead of parsing and evaluating the template expression. **Library usage** The benchmark uses no external libraries for these specific test cases. However, it's worth noting that the `toString()` method is implemented in the browser's JavaScript engine, which might use some internal library or framework (e.g., V8 in Chrome). If a library were used to implement one of these approaches, it would likely be a standard library function. **Special JS feature** The benchmark uses template literals (`${num}`), which is a relatively recent addition to the JavaScript language. Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as part of the `String.prototype` methods and allow for more expressive string formatting using backticks (``). **Other alternatives** If you wanted to add more test cases, here are some alternative approaches: * Using `parseInt()` to convert an integer to a string. * Using a regex pattern to convert an integer to a string. * Using a custom implementation of a string converter. However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient and might not provide comparable results to the three approaches being tested in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Parse string to number
To Formatted Number
Int conversion
Convert String to Number parseInt vs +
string to number convert
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?