Benchmark: testing... - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num+''); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	5406877.0 Ops/sec
.toString()	1569093.8 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.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to create a string in JavaScript:

1. Concatenating strings using the `+` operator: `let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num+''); }`
2. Using the `toString()` method: `let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }`

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Concatenation using the `+` operator
* Using the `toString()` method

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Concatenation using the `+` operator:**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast, as it involves a simple addition operation.
		+ Can be used for small strings or numbers.
	* Cons:
		+ Slow for large strings, as it creates multiple intermediate objects and involves many concatenations.
		+ Less efficient than using `toString()` for large datasets.
2. **Using the `toString()` method:**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster for large datasets, as it only requires a single call to `toString()`.
		+ More efficient than concatenation for repeated conversions.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for very small strings or numbers, due to the overhead of the `toString()` method.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have internal optimizations that could impact performance, such as array buffer or string pool optimizations.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark, apart from the `let` and `for` keywords, which are part of modern JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, here are a few examples:

* Using template literals (``${num}``)
* Using the `Array.prototype.map()` method to create an array of strings
* Using a loop with `join()` instead of concatenation
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js to optimize string creation

Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its own trade-offs and may not be suitable for all use cases.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmarking scenario on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

testing... (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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