Benchmark: padStart vs splice vs normal

Tests:

padStart
let x = 5; let res = ("" + x).padStart(2, "0")
slice
let x = 5; let res = ("0" + x).slice(-2)
normal
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
slice
normal

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 the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches: `padStart`, `slice`, and "normal" (a custom approach).

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **`padStart`**: This approach uses the `padStart()` method to pad a string with zeros from the left until it reaches a specified length.
2. **`slice`**: This approach uses the `slice()` method to extract a subset of characters from a string, starting from a specified index and ending at a specified length (in this case, -2).
3. **"normal"`**: This is a custom approach that checks if the number is less than 10, and if so, converts it to a string by concatenating "0" with the original value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* `padStart`: uses the `padStart()` method
* `slice`: uses the `slice()` method
* "normal": custom approach

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`padStart`**: Pros:
	* Can be more readable, especially when working with strings that need to be padded.
	* Can be more efficient than using string concatenation or a loop.
Cons:
	* May have performance issues if the padding string is very long.
2. **`slice`**: Pros:
	* Generally faster and more efficient than `padStart`, especially for shorter strings.
	* Does not create a new string, which can be beneficial for memory efficiency.
Cons:
	* Can be less readable, especially for those who are not familiar with the method.
3. **"normal"`: Pros:
	* Can be more readable and maintainable, especially when working with conditional logic.
Cons:
	* May have performance issues if the condition is evaluated frequently.

**Library and Features**

None of the test cases use a JavaScript library or special features that are not part of the standard language.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Input size and variability
* Browser and device support
* Memory allocation and deallocation
* String encoding and decoding

**Alternatives**

If you need to benchmark similar approaches, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Using a different string padding method**: Such as `repeat()` or a loop.
2. **Using a different string extraction method**: Such as `substring()`, `indexOf()`, or a regular expression.
3. **Using a different approach for conditional logic**: Such as ternary operators, if-else statements, or switch statements.

By considering these alternatives and factors, you can create more comprehensive benchmarks that accurately reflect the performance characteristics of your code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/93.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 93 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
padStart	67360896.0 Ops/sec
slice	1169579008.0 Ops/sec
normal	1153454720.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

padStart vs splice vs normal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: padStart vs slice vs normal

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

padStart

slice

normal

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):