Benchmark: String Repeatify

Tests:

1
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) { let result = this; for (let i = 0; i < numTimes - 1; i++) { result += this; } return result; }; 'test'.repeatify(100);
2
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) { return new Array(numTimes + 1).join(this); }; 'test'.repeatify(100);
3
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) { return new Array(3).fill(this).join(''); }; 'test'.repeatify(100);
4
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) { var strArray = [this]; for (var i = 0; i < numTimes - 1; i++) { strArray.push(this); } return strArray.join(''); }; 'test'.repeatify(100);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3
4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and its pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a set of test cases that measure the performance of different implementations of the `String.prototype.repeatify` method. This method is expected to repeat the string "test" a specified number of times.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**
```javascript
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) {
  let result = this;
  for (let i = 0; i < numTimes - 1; i++) {
    result += this;
  }
  return result;
};
'test'.repeatify(100);
```
This implementation uses a traditional loop to concatenate the string "test" `numTimes` times.

2. **Test Case 2**
```javascript
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) {
  return new Array(numTimes + 1).join(this);
};
'test'.repeatify(100);
```
This implementation creates an array with `numTimes + 1` elements and joins them together using the `join()` method.

3. **Test Case 3**
```javascript
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) {
  return new Array(3).fill(this).join('');
};
'test'.repeatify(100);
```
This implementation creates an array with three elements, fills it with the string "test", and then joins them together.

4. **Test Case 4**
```javascript
String.prototype.repeatify = function(numTimes) {
  var strArray = [this];
  for (var i = 0; i < numTimes - 1; i++) {
    strArray.push(this);
  }
  return strArray.join('');
};
'test'.repeatify(100);
```
This implementation creates an array with the string "test" and then pushes it `numTimes - 1` more times.

**Comparison**

The test cases compare the performance of these four different implementations. The results show that:

* Test Case 2 outperforms all other test cases, likely due to the efficient use of `Array.join()`.
* Test Case 3 performs well, but not as good as Test Case 2.
* Test Cases 1 and 4 perform poorly, likely due to the inefficient use of loops and concatenation.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each implementation:

1. **Test Case 1**
	* Pros: Easy to understand, straightforward implementation.
	* Cons: Inefficient use of loops and concatenation, resulting in slow performance.
2. **Test Case 2**
	* Pros: Efficient use of `Array.join()`, resulting in fast performance.
	* Cons: Requires creating an array with a specific size, which may not be suitable for all use cases.
3. **Test Case 3**
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand implementation.
	* Cons: Less efficient than Test Case 2 due to the repeated creation of arrays.
4. **Test Case 4**
	* Pros: Efficient use of array push, but still slower than Test Case 2.

**Library**

There is no explicit library used in these test cases. However, some libraries like Lodash might provide a similar implementation for `repeatify` or other string manipulation functions.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark definitions include any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to implement the `String.prototype.repeatify` method could include:

1. Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide efficient string manipulation methods.
2. Implementing a custom solution using native JavaScript methods and optimizations.
3. Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or a trie, to efficiently repeat the string.

These alternatives would require careful consideration of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/63.0.3239.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 63 on Mac OS X 10.13.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	125540.0 Ops/sec
2	210419.5 Ops/sec
3	829218.8 Ops/sec
4	62019.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String Repeatify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

4

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):