Benchmark: Joining strings 3

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
const d = a.map(path => `${path.x.toFixed(0)},${path.y.toFixed(0)}`).join(' '); `M${d}`
for loop concatenation
let b = 'M'; 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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
join	22.9 Ops/sec
for loop concatenation	27.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON describes a benchmark focused on measuring the performance of two different string concatenation approaches using JavaScript. The benchmark tests aim to evaluate which method handles the joining of strings (in this case, coordinates stored in an array of objects) more effectively. Below is a breakdown of the individual tests, their methodologies, advantages and disadvantages, and other relevant considerations.

### Benchmark Overview

#### Test Cases:

1. **Joining Strings Using `map` and `join`**
   - **Code Snippet**: 
     ```javascript
     const d = a.map(path => `${path.x.toFixed(0)},${path.y.toFixed(0)}`).join(' ');
     `M${d}`
     ```
   - **Description**: This method utilizes the `Array.prototype.map()` method to create a new array of formatted strings (using template literals) representing the coordinates, and then combines them into a single string using `Array.prototype.join()`.
   - **Performance**: In the recorded result, this method achieved approximately **38.57 executions per second**.

2. **Joining Strings Using a `for` Loop and Concatenation**
   - **Code Snippet**: 
     ```javascript
     let b = 'M';
     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 method performs string concatenation directly within a `for` loop. It iterates through the array, formats the coordinates as strings, and appends them to an accumulating result string.
   - **Performance**: This method performed better, achieving approximately **46.30 executions per second**.

### Comparison of Approaches

#### Pros and Cons:

1. **`map` and `join` Approach**:
   - **Pros**:
     - **Readability**: This method is often more concise and easier to understand as it explicitly shows the transformation and final assembly of the string in a functional style.
     - **Functional Programming**: Encourages a functional approach which can reduce potential side effects in the code.
   - **Cons**:
     - **Performance Overhead**: It may introduce additional overhead due to the creation of an intermediate array (result of the `map()`), which could impact performance in scenarios with a large number of items.

2. **`for` Loop Method**:
   - **Pros**:
     - **Performance**: Typically faster for large data sets as it minimizes the overhead associated with creating intermediate arrays. Memory consumption is generally lower as it does not require additional data structures.
     - **Simplicity**: The approach is straightforward; it processes each item in place without requiring an additional function call stack.
   - **Cons**:
     - **Readability**: The code can be harder to read especially when the concatenation logic becomes complex.
     - **Mutation**: It involves mutating the result string within the loop, which can lead to errors if not managed properly.

### Considerations

- **JavaScript Engine Optimizations**: V8 (used in Chrome and Node.js) and SpiderMonkey (used in Firefox) may optimize these operations differently. Benchmarks can yield varying results across different JavaScript engines and browser environments.
- **Input Size**: The performance difference may become more pronounced with larger arrays. It's important to consider the context of usage and expected data sizes when choosing an approach.
- **ES6 Features**: The use of template literals (` `${...}` `) in the `map` approach simplifies string formatting, making it a more modern syntax choice.

### Alternatives

- **StringBuilder Libraries**: In scenarios requiring extensive string manipulation, especially in loop-heavy code, using a library that mimics `StringBuilder` patterns, which accumulate strings in an efficient manner, could further enhance performance.
- **Concatenation with Array Accumulation**: An alternate optimization is to use an array to gather strings and join them at the end, similar to how `map` and `join` function but without the overhead of functional transformation:
  ```javascript
  const b = [];
  for (let j = 0; j < a.length; j++) {
      const point = a[j];
      b.push(`${point.x.toFixed(0)},${point.y.toFixed(0)}`);
  }
  const result = `M${b.join(' ')}`;
  ```
This method combines the strengths of readability (with template literals) and performance (by avoiding mutation in loops).

In conclusion, while both methods are valid for joining strings, the choice between them depends on the specific use case, the expected size of data, and considerations around code readability versus performance efficiency.

Related benchmarks:

Joining strings 3 (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):