Benchmark: most tests - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var year = '2004 ';

Tests:

split
console.log(year.split(' ')[0]);
substring
console.log(year.substring(0,4))
loop
let substr = "" for (var i = 0; i < 4; i++) { substr += year.charAt(i) } console.log(substr)
chatAt
let year2 = year.charAt(0) + year.charAt(1) + year.charAt(2) + year.charAt(3); console.log(year2)
slice
console.log(year.slice(0, 4));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
substring
loop
chatAt
slice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/110.0.1587.50

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	181552.1 Ops/sec
substring	181558.5 Ops/sec
loop	170410.9 Ops/sec
chatAt	165174.9 Ops/sec
slice	179165.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a set of individual test cases for measuring the performance of different string manipulation operations in JavaScript. The tests focus on extracting specific parts from a string, such as substrings or characters.

**Options compared:**

There are four options being compared:

1. **Split**: Using `split()` to split a string into an array of substrings.
2. **Substring**: Using the `substring()` method to extract a part of a string.
3. **Loop**: Creating a loop that manually builds a substring by concatenating individual characters from the original string.
4. **charAt**: Using the `charAt()` method to access and concatenate individual characters from the original string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Split**:
	* Pros: Efficient, easy to use, and works well for most cases.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other methods if dealing with large strings or complex patterns.
2. **Substring**:
	* Pros: Works well for extracting a specific part of the string, often faster than `split`.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible as `split` for more complex patterns.
3. **Loop**:
	* Pros: Allows for fine-grained control over the extraction process, can be efficient if done correctly.
	* Cons: More verbose and error-prone compared to other methods.
4. **charAt**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, suitable for extracting individual characters or small substrings.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible as `split` or `substring` for more complex patterns.

**Libraries and special JS features:**

None of the test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the standard built-in methods like `split()`, `substring()`, `charAt()`, and `slice()`.

**Other alternatives:**

There are other string manipulation techniques that could be used to achieve similar results, such as:

1. **Regex**: Using regular expressions can provide more flexibility for complex pattern matching.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: Instead of using a loop, you can use `reduce()` to concatenate substrings.

However, the provided test cases focus on comparing the performance of specific built-in methods, which are widely supported across most JavaScript engines and environments.

**Benchmark interpretation:**

The latest benchmark results show that:

1. **Substring** is the fastest method among the four options.
2. **Split** comes in second, but slightly slower than `substring`.
3. **Loop** and **charAt** are slower than the top two methods.

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on the specific input strings, JavaScript engine versions, and hardware configurations being tested.

Related benchmarks:

most tests (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs substring vs loop vs chatAt vs slice

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

substring

loop

chatAt

slice

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):