Benchmark: transform type vs no transform

Tests:

transform
for(let i=0;i<10000;i++) Number('1'+'2'+'3'+'4')
no transform
for(let i=0;i<10000;i++) '1'+'2'+'3'+'4'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
transform
no transform

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/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
transform	1024.7 Ops/sec
no transform	29198.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is essentially a description of what the benchmark is testing. In this case, there are two benchmarks:

1. "transform type vs no transform"
2. "transform"

However, upon closer inspection, it appears that these two benchmarks are actually identical in terms of their script preparation code.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the `Number()` function to convert a string to a number (the "transform" approach)
* Simply concatenating strings without converting them to numbers (the "no transform" approach)

In JavaScript, when you concatenate multiple strings using the `+` operator, it performs string interpolation by creating a new string that combines the contents of all the operands. This means that the resulting value is a string, not a number.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros of using `Number()` to convert a string to a number include:

* Faster execution time: Because `Number()` returns a numeric value directly, it can bypass the overhead of string interpolation.
* Improved performance: In many cases, this simple conversion can lead to significant performance gains.

However, there are also some cons to consider:

* Readability and maintainability: Using `Number()` can make code less readable, as the intent of the code is not immediately clear. Additionally, if the input strings contain non-numeric characters, the function will throw an error.
* Error handling: If the input string cannot be converted to a number, `Number()` will return `NaN` (Not a Number), which can lead to unexpected behavior in some cases.

On the other hand, the cons of not using `Number()` include:

* Slower execution time: String interpolation can lead to slower performance compared to direct numeric conversions.
* Potential for errors: If the concatenated string is not a valid number, it may cause issues downstream in the codebase.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries. However, if we were to analyze the individual test cases, we would find that they use standard JavaScript functions like `for` loops and concatenation operators.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks. The code is straightforward and follows standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark using a different approach, some alternatives could include:

* Using a library like `Babel` or `ES6 transformers` to transpile the code to a newer version of JavaScript.
* Implementing a custom string conversion function that bypasses the overhead of `Number()`.
* Creating a benchmark that tests the performance of different string manipulation techniques, such as regular expressions or slicing.

However, since the provided benchmarks are identical in terms of their script preparation code, there isn't much room for variation.

Related benchmarks:

transform type vs no transform (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: transform vs no transform

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

transform

no transform

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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