Benchmark: testes - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var value = "               ";

Tests:

regex
if(value !== undefined && value !== null && value !== ''){}
for
if(value !== undefined && value !== null && value !== '' && value.split('').filter((char) => char !== ' ')){}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
for

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by the provided JSON data, which contains the following information:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "testes".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that there is no description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Empty strings, suggesting that there are no specific scripts or HTML code that need to be executed before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **"regex"`**
	* The benchmark definition is an if-statement checking if a variable `value` is not equal to `undefined`, `null`, and empty string (`''`). The purpose of this test case seems to be measuring the performance of a regular expression check.
2. **"for"`**
	* The benchmark definition is another if-statement similar to the previous one, but with an additional check using the `split()` method and `filter()` function to remove whitespace characters from the string.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases are comparing different approaches to performing a regular expression check:

1. **`value !== undefined && value !== null && value !== ''`**: This approach checks if the variable `value` is not equal to `undefined`, `null`, and empty string.
2. **`value !== undefined && value !== null && value !== '' && value.split('').filter((char) => char !== ' ')`**: This approach adds an extra step by splitting the string into individual characters using `split()` and then filtering out whitespace characters using `filter()`. The resulting filtered array is not used anywhere in the benchmark, suggesting that its main purpose is to provide a baseline for comparison.

**Pros and Cons**

* **First approach (regex)**:
	+ Pros: Shorter code, potentially faster execution due to the optimized regular expression engine.
	+ Cons: May have higher overhead due to the regular expression parsing process.
* **Second approach (for)**:
	+ Pros: Additional step provides a baseline for comparison with other approaches.
	+ Cons: Longer code, potentially slower execution due to the string splitting and filtering.

**Library**

There is no explicit mention of any libraries being used in these benchmark definitions. However, regular expressions are a built-in JavaScript feature, so it's likely that the browser or engine being tested supports this functionality natively.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmarks use conditional statements (`if`/`else`) and array methods (`split()`), which are standard JavaScript features. There are no special features or syntax being used in these benchmark definitions.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to the two approaches mentioned, there might be other ways to perform a regular expression check, such as using `String.prototype.replace()` or `String.prototype.indexOf()`. However, without more information about the benchmark's requirements and constraints, it's difficult to provide specific alternatives.

Overall, this benchmark seems to be testing the performance of different approaches for performing a basic regular expression check in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	3323203.5 Ops/sec
for	1654640.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs for

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

for

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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