Benchmark: Test substring - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'test test test'

Tests:

test1
var result = example.substring(0, 100);
test2
var result = example.length > 100 ? example.substring(0, 100) : example;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a script and an HTML preparation code. In this case, both are empty or null, which means that the test only runs the provided JavaScript script.

Script:
```javascript
var example = 'test test test';
```
This script creates a string variable `example` with the value `'test test test'`.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `test1`:
   ```javascript
var result = example.substring(0, 100);
```

This test case uses the `substring()` method to extract a subset of characters from the `example` string. Specifically, it extracts the first 100 characters (from index 0 to 99).

2. `test2`:
   ```javascript
var result = example.length > 100 ? example.substring(0, 100) : example;
```

This test case is a bit more complex. It uses the ternary operator (`?`) to determine which expression to evaluate:

* If `example.length > 100`, it calls `substring()` with indices 0 and 100, just like in `test1`.
    * If `example.length <= 100`, it simply returns the original string `example`.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Let's analyze each approach using the provided test cases:

- **`test1`:**

This approach is simple and straightforward. It only extracts a fixed subset of characters (first 100) without any conditional checks.

Pros: Easy to understand, fast execution.
  
  Cons: May not reflect real-world scenarios where strings are processed in chunks or dynamically.

- **`test2`:**

This approach introduces complexity through the ternary operator. It has two different branches and evaluates conditionally based on `example.length`.

Pros:
    * Can simulate more realistic string processing scenarios (e.g., handling larger-than-fixed-size strings).
    * Potentially more representative of real-world code.
  
  Cons:
    * Less predictable behavior, especially for developers who are not familiar with the ternary operator or conditional statements in general.

**Library and Special JS Features**

- **`substring()` method:**

The `substring()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that extracts a subset of characters from a string. It takes two arguments: start index and length.

In both test cases, it's used to extract part of the `example` string.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could include:

- **Loop-based approach:** Instead of using `substring()`, you could use a loop to iterate over each character in the string. This would be slower but potentially more flexible for longer strings.
  
- **Regular Expressions (RegEx):** You could use RegEx patterns to extract a subset of characters or even match specific sequences within the string. However, this might introduce additional complexity due to the nuances of RegEx.

When choosing an approach for your benchmark, consider the characteristics of the real-world scenario you're trying to simulate and balance between simplicity, predictability, and representativeness.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	14429921.0 Ops/sec
test2	7256895.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test substring (version: 0)

asdasdasd

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

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):