Benchmark: strings miowjrna

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

1.
let str = 'hellohellohellohellohello'
2.
let str = "hellohellohellohellohello"
3.
let str = `hellohellohellohellohello`

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 105 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 105 runs

846.7M/s

822.8M/s

813.8M/s

if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0)

406.9M/s

0'XOR(if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0))XOR'Z

406.9M/s

0"XOR(if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0))XOR"Z

406.9M/s

(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)/*'+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+'"+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+"*/

406.9M/s

1 waitfor delay '0:0:15' --

406.9M/s

1'"

406.9M/s

RDFYjolf

1/s

Fastest: 1. (846691712.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ 1.: 846,691,712 ops/sec
• 2. : 822,805,952 ops/sec
• 3.: 813,753,664 ops/sec
• if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0): 406,876,832 ops/sec
• 0'XOR(if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0))XOR'Z: 406,876,832 ops/sec
• 0"XOR(if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0))XOR"Z: 406,876,832 ops/sec
• (select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)/*'+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+'"+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+"*/: 406,876,832 ops/sec
• 1 waitfor delay '0:0:15' -- : 406,876,832 ops/sec
• 1'": 406,876,832 ops/sec
• RDFYjolf: 1 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1.
2.
3.

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/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

RDFYjolf

1/s

RDFYjolf

1/s

RDFYjolf

1/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ RDFYjolf	1 Ops/sec
✓ RDFYjolf	1 Ops/sec
✓ RDFYjolf	1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark described evaluates the performance of different string literal syntaxes in JavaScript. Three different formats for defining the same string—using single quotes, double quotes, and template literals—are compared.

### Test Cases

1. **Single Quotes:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** `let str = 'hellohellohellohellohello'`
   - **Test Name:** "1."
   - **Results:** Executions per second are recorded at 62,889,808.

2. **Double Quotes:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** `let str = "hellohellohellohellohello"`
   - **Test Name:** "2."
   - **Results:** Executions per second are recorded at 60,302,804.

3. **Template Literals:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** `let str = `hellohellohellohellohello``
   - **Test Name:** "3."
   - **Results:** Executions per second are recorded at 62,870,748.

### Performance Results

From the results gathered, we can observe the following performance measures:

- **Single Quotes:** 62,889,808 executions per second - the highest performance among the three.
- **Template Literals:** 62,870,748 executions per second - slightly lower than single quotes but competing tightly.
- **Double Quotes:** 60,302,804 executions per second - the slowest of the three options.

### Pros and Cons

1. **Single Quotes:**
   - **Pros:**
     - Potentially offers marginally better performance (in this test case).
     - Commonly used in many JavaScript style guides.
   - **Cons:**
     - Might look inconsistent if other libraries or codebases predominantly use double quotes.

2. **Double Quotes:**
   - **Pros:**
     - Useful when inserting strings that may contain single quotes without escaping them, enhancing readability in those cases.
   - **Cons:**
     - Slightly slower performance as per this benchmark.

3. **Template Literals:**
   - **Pros:**
     - Allow for multi-line strings and interpolation (inserting variables within a string using `${variable}` syntax), making them highly flexible.
     - Improve overall readability when constructing strings dynamically.
   - **Cons:**
     - The added flexibility may come at a cost of slightly lower performance in this benchmark context.

### General Considerations

- **Context of Usage:** When choosing string literal syntax, it is essential to consider the project's coding standards and maintain consistency. In performance-critical applications, using the most efficient version based on the benchmark results could be beneficial.
- **Readability vs. Performance:** While performance differences in this specific benchmark are observable, in many real-world applications, the difference may be negligible. Readability and maintainability of code should often take precedence, especially with template literals.

### Alternatives

Outside of these options, JavaScript also supports string concatenation using the `+` operator or `String.concat()`, but these approaches are typically less efficient for constructing string literals due to additional processing overhead. Additionally, external libraries like `lodash` or `string.js` can provide utility functions for string manipulation, but they come with their own overhead and dependencies.

In summary, while single quotes offer the best performance in this particular benchmark, the choice should ultimately depend not just on performance metrics but also on coding standards, maintainability, and the specific needs of each project.

strings miowjrna (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `1. vs 2. vs 3.`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

1.

2.

3.

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 105 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 105 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

strings miowjrna (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: 1. vs 2. vs 3.

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

1.

2.

3.

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 105 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 105 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `1. vs 2. vs 3.`