Benchmark: Test substring 2

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;
test3
var result; if (example.length > 100) { result = example.substring(0, 100); } else { result = example; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2
test3

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 what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a set of scripts that are executed to test different scenarios. The first script checks if the length of the string `example` is greater than 100, and if so, it extracts the substring from index 0 to 100 using the `substring` method. This test case (`test1`) checks the performance of this specific operation.

The second script (`test2`) adds a conditional statement to check if the length of the string `example` is greater than 100 before executing the `substring` method. If the condition is true, it extracts the substring; otherwise, it returns the original string.

The third script (`test3`) uses an `if-else` statement with two separate assignments for the result variable, depending on the outcome of the conditional check. This test case checks the performance of this more complex control flow.

**Options Compared**

In each test case, a different approach is compared:

1. **Simple substring extraction**: `test1` tests the performance of extracting a specific substring from a string using the `substring` method.
2. **Conditional substring extraction**: `test2` tests the performance of checking the length of a string before extracting a substring, and returning either the original string or the extracted substring.
3. **Complex control flow**: `test3` tests the performance of an `if-else` statement with two separate assignments for the result variable.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **Simple substring extraction (test1)**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, straightforward operation.
	* Cons: May not reflect real-world scenarios where strings are often used conditionally.
2. **Conditional substring extraction (test2)**:
	* Pros: More realistic scenario, as strings are often used with conditional checks in real-world code.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the conditional check.
3. **Complex control flow (test3)**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than separate assignments for the result variable, especially if the string is large.
	* Cons: More complex operation, may be harder to understand and debug.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might optimize certain operations or features in specific ways.

**Test Case Considerations**

When writing test cases like these, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Real-world scenarios**: Try to write test cases that reflect real-world usage patterns and scenarios.
* **Control flow complexity**: Be mindful of the complexity of control flows, as they can impact performance.
* **Variable assignment overhead**: Consider the overhead introduced by separate assignments for variables.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add additional test cases or variations, here are some ideas:

* **Test different string lengths**: Vary the length of the `example` string to see how it affects performance.
* **Use different substring extraction methods**: Experiment with alternative substring extraction methods, such as `slice()` or regex.
* **Add more complex control flows**: Introduce additional conditional statements, loops, or function calls to simulate more realistic scenarios.

Keep in mind that the key to writing effective benchmarks is to create test cases that accurately reflect real-world usage patterns and scenarios.

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/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	11188008.0 Ops/sec
test2	5634513.0 Ops/sec
test3	5658942.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test substring 2 (version: 0)

asdasdasdasd

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2 vs test3

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

test3

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):