Benchmark: clsx string concat vs array join

Script Preparation code:


var arr = ['123', undefined, false, 'abc', 'flex', 'flex-row', 'items-center justify-center', undefined, undefined, false];

Tests:

string concat
function clsxConcat(...args) { let str = ''; for (let i = 0; i < args.length; i++) { const tmp = args[i]; if (tmp) { str += (str && ' ') + tmp; } } return str; }
array join
function clsxJoin(...args) { return args.filter(Boolean).join(' '); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string concat
array join

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/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string concat	79313216.0 Ops/sec
array join	84889336.0 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 Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches for concatenating strings or joining arrays: `clsxConcat` and `clsxJoin`. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster, more efficient, or scalable in different scenarios.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **String Concatenation (`clsxConcat`)**: This approach involves using a loop to concatenate strings by appending each string to the existing result.
2. **Array Join (`clsxJoin`)**: This approach uses the `join()` method to concatenate an array of strings into a single string.

**Pros and Cons**

### String Concatenation (`clsxConcat`)

Pros:

* Simple, straightforward implementation
* Works well for small arrays or strings

Cons:

* Can be slow for large arrays or strings due to the overhead of creating and deleting temporary objects
* Inefficient use of memory, as it creates a new string object on each iteration

### Array Join (`clsxJoin`)

Pros:

* Efficient use of memory, as it uses an internal array buffer to concatenate strings without creating intermediate objects
* Faster execution time for large arrays or strings, since the `join()` method is optimized for performance

Cons:

* May have additional overhead due to the `filter(Boolean)` step, which removes falsy values from the array
* Requires careful handling of edge cases, such as empty arrays or strings with non-string elements

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that `clsxJoin` relies on the `join()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript method. If you're interested in exploring alternative implementations for array joining, you might consider using the `concat()` method or a custom implementation.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require specific knowledge to understand. The code is straightforward and easy to follow.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for string concatenation or array joining, here are some options:

* For string concatenation:
	+ Using a template literal (e.g., `str += `${tmp}``)
	+ Utilizing a library like Lodash's `compact` function
* For array joining:
	+ Using the `concat()` method instead of `join()`
	+ Implementing a custom join function using a loop or recursion

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, memory usage, or complexity compared to the original implementation.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its underlying mechanics!

Related benchmarks:

clsx string concat vs array join (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string concat vs array join

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string concat

array join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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