Benchmark: Number to String Performance Benchmark

Script Preparation code:

var n = 1;

Tests:

string n
String(n);
to string
n.toString();
empty string plus n
""+n
template
`${n}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string n
to string
empty string plus n
template

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string n	9396307.0 Ops/sec
to string	24730268.0 Ops/sec
empty string plus n	25695812.0 Ops/sec
template	24484680.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of converting an integer to a string in JavaScript using different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains the script preparation code `var n = 1;` which initializes a variable `n` with the value `1`. The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that no additional HTML elements are needed for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. `"String(n);"`: Converts the integer `n` to a string using the built-in `String()` function.
2. `"n.toString();"`: Converts the integer `n` to a string by calling the `toString()` method on it.
3. "`\"+n`": Concatenates an empty string (`"`) with `n`.
4. "`${n}``: Uses template literals (a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to convert `n` to a string.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

* In test case 2, the `toString()` method is used, which is a built-in JavaScript function.
* In test case 3, concatenation with an empty string (`"\"+n"` ) is used. This is not specific to any library or feature beyond basic JavaScript syntax.
* In test case 4, template literals (``${n}``) are used, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different approaches:

1. Using the built-in `String()` function (`"String(n);"`).
2. Calling the `toString()` method on the integer (`"n.toString();"`).
3. Concatenating an empty string with the integer (`"\"+n`").
4. Using template literals to convert the integer to a string (`"${n}"`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `"String(n);"`: Simple and widely supported, but may incur additional overhead due to function call.
2. `"n.toString();"`: More efficient than calling `String()`, but requires explicit method call.
3. `"\"+n`": Inefficient due to concatenation with an empty string, but is a basic syntax that most developers are familiar with.
4. `"${n}"`: Efficient and modern, but may not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

* Using the `Number()` function instead of `String()`, which would result in a similar performance profile to calling `toString()`.
* Using a string interpolation library (e.g., Handlebars) for more complex template rendering.
* Using other string formatting functions, such as `padStart()` or `padEnd()`, depending on the specific requirements.

**Benchmark Result Interpretation**

The latest benchmark result shows that:

* The built-in `String()` function is the slowest approach (`ExecutionsPerSecond` = 9396307).
* Calling the `toString()` method directly is faster than using `String()` but slower than template literals (`ExecutionsPerSecond` = 24484680 and 24730268, respectively).
* Concatenation with an empty string is the slowest approach (`ExecutionsPerSecond` = 25695812).
* Template literals are the fastest approach (`ExecutionsPerSecond` = 25695812).

Overall, this benchmark highlights the importance of choosing efficient string conversion methods in JavaScript applications.

Related benchmarks:

Number to String Performance Benchmark (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string n vs to string vs empty string plus n vs template

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string n

to string

empty string plus n

template

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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