Benchmark: Joining strings 2

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

/*your preparation JavaScript code goes here
To execute async code during the script preparation, wrap it as function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction, example:*/
const a = [];
async function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction() {
    // This function is optional, feel free to remove it.
    // await someThing();
  	for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
      const x = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000);
      const y = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000);
      a.push({ x, y });
    }
}

Tests:

join
a.map(path => `${path.x.toFixed(0)},${path.y.toFixed(0)}`).join(' ');
for loop concatenation
let b = ''; for(let j = 0; j < a.length; j++) { const point = a[j]; const x = point.x.toFixed(0); const y = point.y.toFixed(0); b += x + ',' + y + ' '; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
for loop concatenation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:135.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/135.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 135 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	38.4 Ops/sec
for loop concatenation	44.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark comparing two different approaches for joining strings created from an array of objects. The benchmark focuses on two specific implementations using JavaScript:

### Benchmark Overview

1. **Test Case 1: `join`**
   - **Implementation**: `a.map(path => \`${path.x.toFixed(0)},${path.y.toFixed(0)}\`).join(' ');`
   - **Description**: This test utilizes the `map()` function to transform an array of objects into an array of formatted strings where each string represents a point (formatted as "x,y"). The `toFixed(0)` method ensures that the numbers are converted to strings without decimal points. Finally, the `join(' ')` method combines all formatted strings into a single string, with space as the separator.

2. **Test Case 2: `for loop concatenation`**
   - **Implementation**: 
     ```javascript
     let b = '';
     for(let j = 0; j < a.length; j++) {
       const point = a[j];
       const x = point.x.toFixed(0);
       const y = point.y.toFixed(0);
       b += x + ',' + y + ' ';
     }
     ```
   - **Description**: This approach employs a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array of objects. For each object, it extracts the `x` and `y` values, formats them as strings, and then concatenates them into a single string `b` (with "x,y " format for each point).

### Comparison of Approaches

**Pros and Cons**:

1. **Map & Join**:
   - **Pros**:
     - **Conciseness**: The code is more succinct and easier to read, leveraging functional programming paradigms.
     - **Chaining**: The use of `map()` and `join()` allows for a more declarative style, promoting readability.
   - **Cons**:
     - **Performance**: Functional methods like `map()` can be slower due to additional overhead in creating intermediate arrays.
   
2. **For Loop Concatenation**:
   - **Pros**:
     - **Performance Efficiency**: Generally faster than the map method due to less overhead. The string concatenation occurs in one operation without creating intermediate structures.
     - **Control**: Provides precise control over the iteration and string building process.
   - **Cons**:
     - **Verbosity**: More lines of code and can be less clear for someone not familiar with traditional loops.
     - **Mutability**: It manipulates a variable that accumulates the result, which could lead to bugs if the logic isn't carefully controlled.

### Benchmark Results

- **Execution Speed**:
  - The `for loop concatenation` achieved an execution rate of **44.51 executions per second**.
  - The `join` method achieved a slightly lower execution rate of **38.39 executions per second**.

This suggests that, in this case, the more traditional `for` loop approach performs better in terms of speed on the specified platform and browser (Firefox 135 on Linux).

### Other Considerations

- **Library or Features Used**: 
  - There are no special libraries or JS features utilized beyond standard JavaScript functionalities (e.g., `map()`, `join()`). However, both methods leverage the string template literals (`` `${...}` ``) to format strings in the first test case.
  
- **Alternative Methods**:
  - **Array.reduce()**: This method can also be an option for this kind of operation, where you could reduce the array into a single string.
  - **StringBuilder-like Structures**: In high-performance scenarios, utilizing an array to collect parts and then `join()` them afterward can mitigate performance hits from string immutability.
  - **Template Literals Optimization**: For large datasets, ensuring that string handling is optimized can significantly benefit performance.

Overall, the benchmark allows developers to understand the trade-offs between readability and performance in JavaScript. While functional approaches like `map()` and `join()` are elegant, imperative methods like traditional loops can yield better performance in certain scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Joining strings 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: join vs for loop concatenation

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

join

for loop concatenation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):