Benchmark: checking string interpolation vs cache

Script Preparation code:

var randomString = "randomString_";

Tests:

Simple interpolation
for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) { const ans = `${randomString}${i}`; } for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) { const ans = `${randomString}${i}`; }
With Cache
const cache = {}; for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) { if (cache[i]) { const ans1 = cache[i]; } else { const ans = `${randomString}${i}`; cache[i] = ans; } } for (let i = 0; i < 50; i++) { if (cache[i]) { const ans1 = cache[i]; } else { const ans = `${randomString}${i}`; cache[i] = ans; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Simple interpolation
With Cache

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/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/128.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Simple interpolation	302168.8 Ops/sec
With Cache	464343.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: string interpolation with caching versus plain string interpolation without caching.

**String Interpolation vs Caching**

In the first approach, "Simple interpolation", the test creates a random string `randomString` and then interpolates it 50 times using template literals (e.g., `${randomString}${i}`). The test is repeated twice to ensure consistency.

In the second approach, "With Cache", the test uses caching to avoid recalculating the interpolated strings. It initializes an empty cache object `{}` and checks if the result for a given index `i` already exists in the cache. If it does, it reuses the cached value; otherwise, it calculates the result using template literals and stores it in the cache.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **String Interpolation without Caching (Simple interpolation)**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can lead to repeated calculations for the same input values, resulting in slower performance due to the overhead of function calls and string concatenation.
2. **String Interpolation with Caching (With Cache)**:
	* Pros: Reduces repeated calculations by storing results in a cache, which can improve performance for similar inputs.
	* Cons: Requires additional memory to store the cache and may lead to increased memory usage if the cache grows large.

**Library and Syntax**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark code. However, it uses template literals (e.g., `${randomString}${i}`), which are a built-in feature of JavaScript introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This allows for easy string interpolation without the need for explicit function calls or concatenation.

**Device and Browser**

The test is run on a desktop device with Chrome 128 as the browser. The `RawUAString` field contains metadata about the user agent, including the browser version, device platform, operating system, and device type.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or libraries for string interpolation, consider:

* Using a library like `lodash.string` which provides functions for string manipulation, including interpolation.
* Implementing custom string interpolation using regex or other techniques.
* Investigating the performance of different caching strategies, such as memoization or lazy loading.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

checking string interpolation vs cache (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Simple interpolation vs With Cache

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Simple interpolation

With Cache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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