Benchmark: dshkshkldsh - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = "some string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string here"

Tests:

charCodeAt(0)
str.charCodeAt(0)
charCodeAt(300)
str.charCodeAt(300)
[0]
str[0]
[10]
str[300]
test222
str[300].charCodeAt(0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
charCodeAt(0)
charCodeAt(300)
[0]
[10]
test222

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides metadata about the test, including its name and description. In this case, there is no description, but it includes script preparation code, which is used to set up the environment for the tests.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a string `str` with 34 characters, repeating the phrase "heresome string heresome string". This string will be used as input for the various test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases defined:

1. **charCodeAt(0)**: Tests the `charCodeAt()` method of the string at index 0.
2. **charCodeAt(300)**: Tests the `charCodeAt()` method of the string at index 300. This is an out-of-bounds access, which may trigger a TypeError or other behavior.
3. **[0]**: Tests accessing the first character of the string using square brackets (`[]`).
4. **[10]**: Tests accessing a character at index 10 using square brackets (`[]`). This is also an out-of-bounds access, similar to `charCodeAt(300)`.
5. **str[300].charCodeAt(0)**: Tests nested indexing and the `charCodeAt()` method on the result.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of these tests explicitly use a library or special JavaScript features beyond standard syntax.

**Options Compared**

These test cases compare different approaches to accessing and manipulating strings in JavaScript:

* **charCodeAt()**: Tests the `charCodeAt()` method, which returns the Unicode code point at the specified index.
* **Square brackets (`[]`)**: Tests direct indexing of the string using square brackets. This is generally faster than `charCodeAt()` for small indices but can be slower for larger indices due to caching and other optimizations.
* **Nested indexing**: Tests accessing a nested property (in this case, `str[300]`) and then applying `charCodeAt(0)` to it.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **charCodeAt()**:
	+ Pros: Provides the Unicode code point at the specified index, which can be useful for text processing.
	+ Cons: May throw a TypeError if the index is out of bounds or if the string is not accessible (e.g., due to sandboxing).
* **Square brackets (`[]`)**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more lightweight than `charCodeAt()` for small indices.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for larger indices, and may throw an error if the index is out of bounds.
* **Nested indexing**:
	+ Pros: Can provide a way to access nested properties in a single operation.
	+ Cons: May require additional checks for null or undefined values before applying `charCodeAt(0)`.

**Other Considerations**

When running these tests, it's essential to consider the following:

* Error handling: How will the test handle errors that may occur when accessing out-of-bounds indices or when encountering null or undefined values?
* Caching: Will the test take into account any caching optimizations that may be enabled in the JavaScript engine or browser?
* Platform and environment differences: Are there any platform-specific considerations, such as Unicode handling or string encoding differences?

**Alternatives**

There are alternative approaches to testing string access and manipulation, including:

* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for more complex string operations.
* Implementing custom tests using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha.
* Creating a custom benchmarking suite using a tool like BenchmarkJS.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
charCodeAt(0)	28340196.0 Ops/sec
charCodeAt(300)	28377850.0 Ops/sec
[0]	28333720.0 Ops/sec
[10]	28315474.0 Ops/sec
test222	26966460.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

dshkshkldsh (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: charCodeAt(0) vs charCodeAt(300) vs [0] vs [10] vs test222

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

charCodeAt(0)

charCodeAt(300)

[0]

[10]

test222

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):