Benchmark: padStart vs splice vs conditional

Tests:

padStart
let x = 5; let res = ("" + x).padStart(2, "0")
splice
let x = 5; let res = ("0" + x).slice(-2)
condition
let x = 5; let res = x<10 ? `0${x}` : `${x}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
padStart
splice
condition

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 benchmark and its test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The current benchmark compares three different approaches for padding or formatting strings:

1. `padStart`
2. `splice` (specifically, using `slice(-2)` to get the last two characters of a string)
3. A conditional approach that uses template literals with an empty string (`"0${x}"`) if the condition is true and the original string (``${x}``) otherwise.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. `padStart`: Measures the speed of using `padStart` to pad a string with zeros.
2. `splice`: Measures the speed of using `slice(-2)` to get the last two characters of a string.
3. `condition`: Measures the speed of the conditional approach using template literals.

**Approaches Compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their execution time (measured in executions per second). The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **padStart**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and concise syntax
		+ No risk of buffer overflow or string manipulation errors
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient as other approaches due to the use of a built-in method
2. **splice**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster than `padStart` in some cases, as it only requires getting the last two characters of the string
	* Cons:
		+ Risk of buffer overflow or string manipulation errors if not used carefully
		+ May not be as readable or concise as `padStart`
3. **Condition**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more efficient than `padStart` in some cases, as it avoids the overhead of a built-in method and uses template literals
	* Cons:
		+ More complex syntax, which may make it harder to read or maintain

**Library Used**

None, as this benchmark is purely testing JavaScript core functionality.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `condition` test case uses template literals with the conditional operator (`?:`) and string concatenation (`"0${x}"`). The syntax for this approach was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) to make it easier to perform string interpolation.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
padStart	53533900.0 Ops/sec
splice	163821696.0 Ops/sec
condition	163861024.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

padStart vs splice vs conditional (version: 0)

Measures speed between using padStart and splice and conditional

Comparing performance of: padStart vs splice vs condition

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

padStart

splice

condition

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):