Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
String Concatenation
(version: 5)
Comparing performance of:
Standard Plus Concat vs Plus Equals vs String.Concat
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var base = "HEY", a = "BOB";
Tests:
Standard Plus Concat
base = base + a;
Plus Equals
base += a;
String.Concat
base = string.concat(a, b);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Standard Plus Concat
Plus Equals
String.Concat
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into explaining the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of string concatenation in JavaScript. It compares three different approaches: 1. **Standard Plus Concat**: Using the `+` operator for concatenation (e.g., `base + a`) 2. **Plus Equals**: Using the `+=` assignment operator for concatenation (e.g., `base += a`) 3. **String.Concat**: Using the `concat()` method for concatenation **Options Comparison** Here's a brief overview of each approach: * **Standard Plus Concat**: + Pros: Widely supported and understood by most developers. + Cons: Can lead to performance issues due to the creation of intermediate strings, as shown in the benchmark results. * **Plus Equals**: + Pros: Often used for concatenation, especially in situations where `base` is already assigned a value. However, this approach can lead to unnecessary reassignments and memory allocations. + Cons: Can still result in performance issues due to intermediate string creation, similar to the Standard Plus Concat approach. * **String.Concat**: + Pros: Efficiently creates an array of strings without creating intermediate arrays or objects. This is particularly useful for large concatenations. + Cons: Requires a supported browser and/or JavaScript engine (not all engines support it). **Library/Functionality Consideration** In this benchmark, the `concat()` method is used, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard and widely supported by most modern browsers. This allows users to run the benchmark on various devices without worrying about compatibility issues. **Special JS Features/Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on string concatenation using different approaches. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative ways to concatenate strings, consider the following: * **Array.prototype.push()**: Concatenating strings using `push()` can lead to performance issues due to array resizing. * **String.join()**: Using `join()` with an empty string can be more efficient than concatenation methods. * **Template literals** (introduced in ECMAScript 2015): Template literals provide a concise and efficient way to concatenate strings without the need for explicit operator overloading. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as widely supported or understood by all developers, which could affect benchmark results or code maintainability.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.concat vs splice 1
concat vs plus string
EGO concat vs spread Small Array
Concatenate random strings with + vs template literals vs String.concat
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?