Benchmark: +"" vs .toString()

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num + ""); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	1232289.8 Ops/sec
.toString()	668471.2 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 definitions and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is an object that contains metadata about the test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. `"+\" vs .toString()"`: This test case compares the performance of concatenating a string with double quotes (`+""`) versus using the `toString()` method.
2. `".toString()"`: This test case only uses the `toString()` method.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is not provided for this benchmark, but it's likely that the script being tested is created dynamically based on the benchmark definition. In this case, the script is generated by concatenating a string with double quotes and pushing the result to an array 100 times.

**Individual Test Cases**

Let's analyze each test case:

1. `"+\" vs .toString()"`:
	* **Approach 1: Concatenation with double quotes (`+""`)**
		+ Pros: Simple, widely supported.
		+ Cons: May lead to performance issues due to string interpolation and concatenation overhead.
	* **Approach 2: Using `toString()` method**
		+ Pros: Efficient, as it avoids the overhead of string interpolation and concatenation.
		+ Cons: May not be as readable or intuitive for developers familiar with double quotes in strings.
2. `".toString()"`:
	* This test case only uses the `toString()` method.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some modern browsers may optimize certain string operations using libraries like WebAssembly or specialized string manipulation functions.

As for special JavaScript features, there are none explicitly mentioned, but keep in mind that some advanced browsers may use optimized string concatenation and interpolation techniques under the hood.

**Other Alternatives**

To compare the performance of these two approaches, other alternatives could include:

* Using template literals (e.g., `x + ""` vs. `x.toString()`)
* Implementing custom string concatenation functions
* Compiling or transpiling JavaScript code to generate optimized strings

These alternatives would provide additional context for understanding the trade-offs between different string manipulation approaches in JavaScript.

In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between two simple string concatenation approaches: using double quotes (`+""`) versus the `toString()` method. The test cases demonstrate how both methods perform on a specific script that generates and pushes strings to an array 100 times.

Related benchmarks:

+"" vs .toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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