Benchmark: testCharacter Presence

Script Preparation code:

var text="AFDGjsqdfkl sfja3FQSDF ¤ qsdfqs QSFQSDF/qqsj -QSFQS"

Tests:

indexOF_test
text.indexOf('¤') > 0
split_test
text.split('¤').length > 1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOF_test
split_test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and what are the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript expression that will be executed to measure performance. In this case, there are two benchmarks:

1. `text.indexOf('¤') > 0`
2. `text.split('¤').length > 1`

Both expressions use a string variable `text` and manipulate its contents using built-in methods: `indexOf()` and `split()`. The goal is to compare the performance of these two approaches.

**Libraries**

There are no explicit libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `text` variable is initialized with a sample string that includes special characters, such as the non-ASCII character ¤ (U+00A4).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses some special JavaScript features and syntax:

1. **Template literals**: The `text` variable is assigned using template literals, which allows embedding expressions inside backticks ``. In this case, it's used to create a string with embedded characters.
2. **Non-ASCII characters**: The string `text` includes non-ASCII characters (¤) that may affect the performance of different browsers or implementations.

**Options Compared**

The two benchmarks compare different approaches for searching and splitting strings:

1. `indexOf('¤') > 0`
	* Uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of a specific character within the string.
	* Returns a number indicating the position of the character, or -1 if not found.
2. `text.split('¤').length > 1`
	* Uses the `split()` method to split the string into an array of substrings using a specified separator (in this case, ¤).
	* Returns an array with the resulting substrings; if the separator is not found, it returns an empty array.
3. **Dynamic vs. Static Approach**
	* The first approach (`indexOf()`) uses a static search for a specific character. It's likely to be faster and more efficient since the index of the character can be precomputed beforehand.
	* The second approach (`split()`) is a dynamic search that may require more CPU cycles to process, especially if the separator is not found.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. `indexOf('¤') > 0`
	* Pros: Faster and more efficient since it uses a static search.
	* Cons: May not work correctly if the character is not found in the string.
2. `text.split('¤').length > 1`
	* Pros: Can handle any separator, but may be slower due to dynamic processing.
	* Cons: May require more CPU cycles and memory since it creates an array of substrings.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare performance for different string manipulation approaches, here are some alternatives:

1. **Regular expressions**: Use `RegExp.test()` or `RegExp.exec()` to search for patterns in the string.
2. **Array methods**: Use `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()` to manipulate arrays of strings.
3. **Native browser functions**: Explore native browser functions like `String.prototype.localeCompare()` for comparing strings.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs between performance, complexity, and ease of use, depending on the specific requirements of your project.

In conclusion, the benchmark definition uses two approaches to measure string manipulation performance: static search using `indexOf()` vs. dynamic search using `split()`. The pros and cons of each approach highlight the importance of understanding the intricacies of JavaScript and optimizing code for specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.198 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOF_test	9794693.0 Ops/sec
split_test	3836330.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testCharacter Presence (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOF_test vs split_test

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOF_test

split_test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):