Benchmark: Native JS: Array.join strings vs template literals vs String.concat vs string sum

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

join
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = [id, ':', i, ', ', name, ':', 'name', i].join(); }
concat
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ':', i, ', ', name, ':', 'name', i); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${id}:${i}, ${name}:name${i}`; }
string sum
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = id + ':' + i + ', ' + name + ':' + 'name' + i }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
join
concat
using template literals
string sum

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/147.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

string sum

192K/s

using template literals

187K/s

concat

104K/s

join

70K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ string sum	192,308 Ops/sec
using template literals	186,737 Ops/sec
concat	104,490 Ops/sec
join	69,717 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark focuses on evaluating different methods for concatenating strings in JavaScript, specifically comparing four approaches: using `Array.join`, `String.concat`, template literals, and the string sum operator (`+`).

### Approach Comparisons

1. **Using `Array.join`**: 
   - **Benchmark Code**: `let result = [id, ':', i, ', ', name, ':', 'name', i].join();`
   - **Pros**:
     - It allows for easy handling of multiple strings and can work well with dynamic array content.
     - The syntax is clear when concatenating large numbers of strings.
   - **Cons**:
     - Involves creating an array first, which may introduce additional overhead for performance as it requires memory allocation.

2. **Using `String.concat`**: 
   - **Benchmark Code**: `let result = "".concat(id, ':', i, ', ', name, ':', 'name', i);`
   - **Pros**:
     - Explicitly shows the intention of concatenating strings.
     - Can be clearer than the `+` operator in some contexts.
   - **Cons**:
     - Generally, performance may not be as good as other methods due to its non-optimized path in some JavaScript engines.

3. **Using Template Literals**:
   - **Benchmark Code**: `let result = `${id}:${i}, ${name}:name${i}`;`
   - **Pros**:
     - Provides a very readable syntax and is easy to write. 
     - Allows for multi-line strings without needing to use escape characters.
   - **Cons**:
     - Older browsers that do not support ES6 may not handle this syntax. However, modern environments usually support it.

4. **Using String Sum (`+`)**:
   - **Benchmark Code**: `let result = id + ':' + i + ', ' + name + ':' + 'name' + i;`
   - **Pros**:
     - Very straightforward and widely understood syntax.
     - Works in virtually all JavaScript environments.
   - **Cons**:
     - As the number of strings increases, it can become cumbersome to read and maintain compared to more structured approaches like template literals.

### Benchmark Results

According to the benchmark results, the execution speeds (measured as executions per second) for each method were:

1. **Template Literals**: 125684.12
2. **String Sum (`+`)**: 125207.22
3. **String.concat**: 83752.67
4. **Array.join**: 82466.44

### Considerations

- **Performance Implications**: If string concatenation is a performance-critical aspect of your application, the results suggest that template literals might be the best option, followed closely by using the `+` operator. 
- **Readability vs. Performance**: While performance is essential, code clarity and maintainability should not be ignored. Template literals score high on readability.
- **Browser Compatibility**: It is important to consider the target audience and their browsers since older environments might not support newer features like template literals.

### Alternatives

- **String Builder Libraries**: For complex scenarios, especially where concatenation happens in large loops, you can utilize libraries optimized for string building.
- **Using Faster Algorithms**: If concatenation occurs in numerous iterations, it may be worthwhile to consider algorithms that are optimized for building longer strings rather than typical concatenation methods.

This benchmark helps in understanding the trade-offs between performance and readability in string concatenation, guiding developers in choosing the right method based on their specific needs.

Native JS: Array.join strings vs template literals vs String.concat vs string sum (version: 1)

find the best solution for concatenate strings

Comparing performance of: `join vs concat vs using template literals vs string sum`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

join

concat

using template literals

string sum

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Native JS: Array.join strings vs template literals vs String.concat vs string sum (version: 1)

find the best solution for concatenate strings

Comparing performance of: join vs concat vs using template literals vs string sum

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

join

concat

using template literals

string sum

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: `join vs concat vs using template literals vs string sum`