Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-join

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
var result = '';

Tests:

string-interpolation
result = `your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}`
string-concatenation
result = 'your lucky number for today is:' + ' ' + luckyNumber
string-join
result = ['your lucky number for today is:', luckyNumber].join(' ');
string-appebd
result = 'your lucky number for today is:'.concat(' ').concat(luckyNumber);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

string-interpolation

8.2M/s

string-concatenation

8.2M/s

string-appebd

7.2M/s

string-join

5.2M/s

Fastest: string-interpolation (1.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string-interpolation: 8,212,260 ops/sec
• string-concatenation: 8,197,804 ops/sec
• string-appebd: 7,219,387 ops/sec
• string-join: 5,249,162 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

string-concatenation

397.2M/s

string-interpolation

110.0M/s

string-appebd

44.1M/s

string-join

12.9M/s

Fastest: string-concatenation (30.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string-concatenation: 397,157,728 ops/sec
• string-interpolation: 110,009,568 ops/sec
• string-appebd: 44,083,072 ops/sec
• string-join: 12,924,029 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
string-interpolation
string-concatenation
string-join
string-appebd

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

string-interpolation

16.0M/s

string-concatenation

14.5M/s

string-appebd

13.9M/s

string-join

10.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ string-interpolation	16,015,872 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	14,498,458 Ops/sec
string-appebd	13,852,171 Ops/sec
string-join	10,211,573 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark definition and analyze what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares three ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. String interpolation using template literals (`"..."`)
2. String concatenation using the `+` operator
3. String concatenation using the `.concat()` method

These methods are compared to determine which one is the fastest.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition JSON contains the following information:

* The name of the benchmark: "string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-join"
* A description (empty in this case)
* Script preparation code that generates a random number `luckyNumber`
* HTML preparation code (empty in this case)

**Individual Test Cases**

The individual test cases are defined as an array, where each object contains:

* The benchmark definition for the test
* The name of the test

Here's a brief explanation of each test case:

1. "string-interpolation": This test uses template literals to concatenate the string with the `luckyNumber`.
2. "string-concatenation": This test uses the `+` operator to concatenate the strings.
3. "string-join": This test uses the `.join()` method to concatenate the strings.
4. "string-appebd": This test has an error in the benchmark definition (should be "string-append") and uses the `.concat()` method to concatenate the strings.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **String Interpolation**: This is the recommended way to concatenate strings in modern JavaScript. It's fast, efficient, and readable.
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, readable
	* Cons: Requires support for template literals (most browsers do)
2. **String Concatenation using `+` Operator**: This method is widely supported, but it can lead to performance issues due to the creation of temporary strings.
	* Pros: Widely supported, easy to implement
	* Cons: Slow, inefficient, can lead to performance issues
3. **String Concatenation using `.concat()` Method**: This method is also widely supported and can be faster than the `+` operator in some cases. However, it's still slower than template literals.
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, widely supported
	* Cons: Requires a function call, which can lead to performance issues

**Libraries**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

Template literals (used in "string-interpolation") are a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They provide a more readable and efficient way to concatenate strings.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to concatenate strings, consider using template literals if possible. If not, the `.concat()` method is a reliable alternative.

In general, when choosing between these methods, consider the following:

* Use string interpolation (template literals) for readability and performance.
* Use the `+` operator or the `.concat()` method when you need to concatenate strings frequently, but ensure that you're using them in a way that avoids performance issues.

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-join (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `string-interpolation vs string-concatenation vs string-join vs string-appebd`

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

string-join

string-appebd

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-join (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation vs string-join vs string-appebd

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

string-join

string-appebd

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `string-interpolation vs string-concatenation vs string-join vs string-appebd`