Benchmark: split vs substring (correct version 2)

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'there is no spoon'

Tests:

split
var result = example.split(' ')
substring (hard coded)
var result = [] result.push(example.substring(0, 5)) result.push(example.substring(6, 8)) result.push(example.substring(9, 11)) result.push(example.substring(12))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
substring (hard coded)

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/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	7011641.5 Ops/sec
substring (hard coded)	3558555.2 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 explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Description:**
The test compares the performance of three different string manipulation approaches in JavaScript:

1. `split()`
2. Creating an array and pushing substrings using `substring()` (with hardcoded indices)
3. Creating an array and pushing substrings using a more dynamic approach (not shown in the provided code)

**Options Comparison:**

* **`split()`**: This method splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator. In this case, we're splitting the string at each space character.
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and concise syntax
		- Fast and efficient implementation
	+ Cons:
		- May not be suitable for custom separators or more complex splitting requirements
* **Substring with hardcoded indices**: This approach creates an array and pushes substrings using `substring()` with predefined indices.
	+ Pros:
		- Allows for more control over the indexing process
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and maintainable due to hardcoded values
		- May not be suitable for dynamic or varying index requirements

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**
The script preparation code creates a sample string `example` containing the phrase "there is no spoon".

**HTML Preparation Code:** There is no HTML preparation code provided, suggesting that this benchmark is focused solely on JavaScript performance.

**Test Cases:**

1. **`split()`**: This test case uses the `split()` method with a space character as the separator.
2. **Substring with hardcoded indices**: This test case pushes substrings using `substring()` with predefined indices (5-6, 8-9, and an empty substring for the remaining characters).

**Library Usage:**
None of the provided code snippets use any external libraries or modules.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax:**
There are no special features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may optimize certain string methods, such as `split()` or `substring()`, for specific use cases (e.g., performance-critical code paths).

**Alternative Approaches:**

1. **Using `match()` and array comprehension**: This approach could involve using the `match()` method with a regular expression to extract substrings and then pushing them into an array using array comprehension.
2. **Using `reduce()` or other iteration methods**: Instead of pushing individual substrings, you might use `reduce()` or another iteration method to create the resulting array.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may not be as efficient or readable as the original code snippets, but they demonstrate other possible solutions for achieving the same result.

Related benchmarks:

split vs substring (correct version 2) (version: 0)

Compares slice, substr and substring to each other when there is only a start index, check the split vs substring benchmark for the original version. It's also not fair since the substring split points are hardcoded

Comparing performance of: split vs substring (hard coded)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

substring (hard coded)

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):