Benchmark: reverse words v3

Script Preparation code:

var str = "This is an example!";

Tests:

Partial chaining
var reversed = str.split(' ').map( str => str.split('').reverse().join('') ).join(' ');
Full chaining
var reversed = str.split("").reverse().join("").split(" ").reverse().join(" ");
Regex
str.replace(/\S+/g, w => w.split('').reverse().join(''));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Partial chaining
Full chaining
Regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Partial chaining	406934.1 Ops/sec
Full chaining	739159.5 Ops/sec
Regex	433882.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to reverse words in a string:

1. **Full Chaining**: This approach chains multiple operations together, reversing each word individually and then joining them back together.
2. **Partial Chaining**: This approach reverses only the last word before moving on to the next one, effectively doing the same operation but with less overhead.
3. **Regex**: This approach uses regular expressions to reverse each word.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these three approaches for reversing words in a string:

* Full Chaining: `var reversed = str.split(' ').map( str => str.split('').reverse().join('') ).join(' ');`
* Partial Chaining: `var reversed = str.split(\"\").reverse().join(\\"\").split(\" \").reverse().join(\" \");`
* Regex: `str.replace(/\\S+/g, w => w.split('').reverse().join(''));`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Full Chaining**: This approach is explicit and easy to understand, but it can be slower due to the overhead of multiple operations.
2. **Partial Chaining**: This approach is more efficient because it avoids creating temporary arrays for each word, but it may be less readable for those unfamiliar with this pattern.
3. **Regex**: Using regular expressions can be a quick fix, but it's not always the most efficient or maintainable solution, especially when dealing with complex patterns.

**Library and Special JS Features**

* None of these approaches use any specific libraries beyond built-in JavaScript features.

**Other Considerations**

When writing this benchmark, the goal is to isolate the performance differences between these three approaches. The test cases are designed to be simple and concise, making it easy to understand what's being measured.

To further improve this benchmark:

* Consider adding more test cases with varying input sizes or edge cases.
* Use a more robust method for generating random input strings.
* Include a baseline measurement using a naive approach (e.g., concatenating reversed words) to establish a minimum performance threshold.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to reversing words in a string could include:

1. Using `String.prototype.split()` and then joining the reversed words back together.
2. Using `Array.prototype.reverse()` on an array of individual characters for each word.
3. Implementing a custom recursive function to reverse each word individually.
4. Using a third-party library or utility function specifically designed for string manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, so they'd need to be measured and compared using a benchmark like this one.

Related benchmarks:

reverse words v3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Partial chaining vs Full chaining vs Regex

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Partial chaining

Full chaining

Regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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