Benchmark: Native JS2: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

using plus operator
name + id
using concat function
name.concat(id)
using template literals
`${name}{id}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using concat function
using template literals

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of three different approaches for concatenating strings:

1. Using the `+` operator
2. Using the `concat()` function
3. Using template literals (`${}`)

**Approach 1: Using the `+` Operator**

The `+` operator is a basic string concatenation method in JavaScript. It works by creating a new string and appending each operand to it.

Pros:

* Widely supported across browsers and platforms.
* Easy to implement.

Cons:

* Creates a new temporary object for each concatenation, leading to increased memory usage and garbage collection overhead.
* Can lead to slower performance due to the creation of intermediate strings.

**Approach 2: Using `concat()` Function**

The `concat()` function is a built-in method in JavaScript that concatenates two or more strings. It returns a new string containing all the input arguments.

Pros:

* More efficient than using the `+` operator, as it avoids creating temporary objects.
* Still relatively fast compared to other methods.

Cons:

* Requires calling a function (i.e., `concat()`), which may incur additional overhead.

**Approach 3: Using Template Literals (`${}`)**

Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`) instead of double quotes (`"`).

Pros:

* Fastest among the three approaches, as it avoids creating temporary objects and function calls.
* More readable and maintainable than traditional concatenation methods.

Cons: None significant in this context.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is used. The test cases only rely on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The template literals feature (`${}`) is the special syntax being tested here.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code provided generates two variables: `name` and `id`, both initialized with string values `"name"` and `"id"`. These variables will be used to concatenate strings in each test case.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for concatenating strings include:

* Using the `+=` assignment operator (e.g., `name += id;`)
* Creating an array of strings and joining them using the `join()` method
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `templateLiteral` function for string interpolation

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

**Benchmark Result Interpretation**

The latest benchmark result shows that template literals outperform both `+` operator and `concat()` function approaches. This is because template literals avoid creating temporary objects, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead. The results also suggest that the `concat()` function is faster than using the `+` operator, as expected.

Please note that these results may vary depending on specific use cases, browsers, and platforms.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS2: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

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):