Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
string with + vs template literals vs String.concat 4 input
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
plus vs concat vs iteral
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var name = "name lkjasdl;fj la;sflk;asdjf l;kj l;aksdjfla;kjs lka;sdjf la;ksdjf l;aksdjfl ;askd l;aksjf als;kdjf la;skdjfl;aksdjfl;aksdfl;aksdjf l; l;aksdjf ;laskdjf l;aksdjf l;askdjfl;askdjf;laskdj fl;aksdjf las;kd fal;sdf al;skdfjla;ksdjfl;aksdjf la;skdjfla;ksdjfla;skdjfla;skdfjals;kdjfa;lskdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjal;skj a asd;lfkjasl;kd fl; kasdf l;askdj l;askdj ;ladskfja;lsdkfj al;sdkfj ;l asld;kfj as;ldkfja l;sdkfj al;skdfj as;ldkfj asl;dkf. l;asdkfj al;skdfj a;lkasdfj ;laksdfj a;sldkfj a;slasdflkj asl;dkfj asdl; asl;dkfj asl;dkfjasl;dkfj a;lsdfjla;skdfj al;sdkjf lk;sadf asl;kdfja s;ldkfj asl;dkfj als;kdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj as;lkdf. asldf asl;kdf als;dkf asld;kfjasl;dkfj asl;kdfaslkd fa;lskd aslk;dfj asl;dkfj als;dfkjasl;dkfj asl;kdfj als;kdfj asl;kdfj asl;kdf aslk;d fljasdfkjasldk;fja s;lkdfj al;skdfjal;ksdfj lak;sdf a;lskdfj l;askdfj l;askdfj a;lskdj alskdfja l;skdfj als;kdfj asd;lkfjasdl;kfasdjf al;skdfj a;lskdfj a;lskdfj als;kdfj al; as ldkfjas l;dkfj asl;dfajsl;kdfj asl;kdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj als;kdfj slkda asl;kdfj l;askdfj al;skdf alsk;df alsk;dfj as;lkdfj l;askdfj laskdf"; var id = "id name lkjasdl;fj la;sflk;asdjf l;kj l;aksdjfla;kjs lka;sdjf la;ksdjf l;aksdjfl ;askd l;aksjf als;kdjf la;skdjfl;aksdjfl;aksdfl;aksdjf l; l;aksdjf ;laskdjf l;aksdjf l;askdjfl;askdjf;laskdj fl;aksdjf las;kd fal;sdf al;skdfjla;ksdjfl;aksdjf la;skdjfla;ksdjfla;skdjfla;skdfjals;kdjfa;lskdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjal;skj a asd;lfkjasl;kd fl; kasdf l;askdj l;askdj ;ladskfja;lsdkfj al;sdkfj ;l asld;kfj as;ldkfja l;sdkfj al;skdfj as;ldkfj asl;dkf. l;asdkfj al;skdfj a;lkasdfj ;laksdfj a;sldkfj a;slasdflkj asl;dkfj asdl; asl;dkfj asl;dkfjasl;dkfj a;lsdfjla;skdfj al;sdkjf lk;sadf asl;kdfja s;ldkfj asl;dkfj als;kdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj as;lkdf. asldf asl;kdf als;dkf asld;kfjasl;dkfj asl;kdfaslkd fa;lskd aslk;dfj asl;dkfj als;dfkjasl;dkfj asl;kdfj als;kdfj asl;kdfj asl;kdf aslk;d fljasdfkjasldk;fja s;lkdfj al;skdfjal;ksdfj lak;sdf a;lskdfj l;askdfj l;askdfj a;lskdj alskdfja l;skdfj als;kdfj asd;lkfjasdl;kfasdjf al;skdfj a;lskdfj a;lskdfj als;kdfj al; as ldkfjas l;dkfj asl;dfajsl;kdfj asl;kdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj als;kdfj slkda asl;kdfj l;askdfj al;skdf alsk;df alsk;dfj as;lkdfj l;askdfj laskdf";
Tests:
plus
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"+id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"+id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"+id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
concat
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem",id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem",id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem",id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
iteral
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem ${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem ${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem ${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
plus
concat
iteral
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
It seems like you have provided a detailed output of a benchmarking tool, likely `benchmark` in JavaScript, with its configuration and test cases. To answer your question, I'll focus on the execution times of each test case. Here's a summary: 1. **Concatenation** (`concat`): * Latest benchmark result: 36.70173645019531 executions per second (approx.) 2. **Literal concatenation** (`literal`): * Latest benchmark result: 37.289737701416016 executions per second (approx.) 3. **Plus operator** (`plus`): * Latest benchmark result: 38.235294342041016 executions per second (approx.) Based on these results, it appears that the `+` operator is slightly faster than concatenation, and literal concatenation is similar to using a template string with `${}`. Please note that these results are based on a single benchmarking run and may not reflect the overall performance of your application. Additionally, the execution times can vary depending on the specific use case, hardware, and other factors. If you'd like to discuss further or have any questions about this output, feel free to ask!
Related benchmarks:
Javascript 'concat()' vs '+' for strings
Concatenation vs Template String
Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat2
Native JS2: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?