Benchmark: get only numbers

Tests:

to string - replace - and parsed
const str = '#10'; const strNew = parseInt(str.replace(/\D/g,''));
match
const str = '#10'; const strNew = str.toString().match(/\d+/g).map(Number);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
to string - replace - and parsed
match

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is defined by two test cases, each with its own script preparation code and HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case). The test cases are designed to measure the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Test Cases:**

1. **"to string - replace - and parsed"**: This test case uses a simple script to:
	* Assign a string value `#10` to the variable `str`.
	* Use the `replace()` method to remove non-numeric characters (`\\D`) from the string, resulting in `10`.
	* Convert the modified string to a number using `parseInt()`.
	* Assign this new numeric value to `strNew`.
2. **"match"**: This test case uses a script to:
	* Assign a string value `#10` to the variable `str`.
	* Use the `toString()` method to convert the string to a string.
	* Use regular expressions (`/\\d+/g`) to match all occurrences of numeric characters in the string, resulting in an array of numbers `[10]`.
	* Map this array of strings to an array of numbers using `map(Number)`.

**Options Compared:**
The two test cases compare different approaches to achieving a similar result:

1. **"to string - replace - and parsed"**: Uses `replace()` followed by `parseInt()`, which is a straightforward approach.
2. **"match"**: Uses regular expressions to match numeric characters in the string, which can be more efficient for larger inputs.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **"to string - replace - and parsed"**:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand, works well with small inputs.
	* Cons: May not perform well with very large inputs due to repeated string concatenation and parsing.
2. **"match"**:
	* Pros: More efficient for larger inputs, as it only scans the string once and uses a regular expression cache.
	* Cons: Requires knowledge of regular expressions, which can be complex for beginners.

**Library/Functions Used:**

1. `replace()`: A built-in JavaScript method used to replace substrings in a string.
2. `parseInt()`: A built-in JavaScript function used to convert a string to a number.
3. `toString()`: A built-in JavaScript method used to convert an object to a string.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None mentioned, but regular expressions are used in the "match" test case. Regular expressions can be complex and may require additional explanation or expertise.

**Other Alternatives:**
There are other ways to achieve similar results, such as:

1. Using `RegExp` objects instead of regular expressions.
2. Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore` for more complex string manipulation tasks.
3. Using a different data structure, like an array or object, to store the numeric values.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and may not be suitable for every use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/63.0.3239.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 63 on Mac OS X 10.13.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
to string - replace - and parsed	2489568.0 Ops/sec
match	3045610.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

get only numbers (version: 5)

Comparing performance of: to string - replace - and parsed vs match

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

to string - replace - and parsed

match

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):