Benchmark: splittt - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

split
const str = "2023-08-21_06-06-05;LAeq:94.0 LCeq:94.0 LCpk:97.7"; const firstSplit = str.split(" "); const afterSecondSplit = firstSplit[1].split(":")[1];
substring
const str = "2023-08-21_06-06-05;LAeq:94.0 LCeq:94.0 LCpk:97.7"; let s = str.search("LCeq") + 5; const sub = str.substring(s, s + 4);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
substring

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition contains two test cases: "split" and "substring".

**Test Case 1: "split"**

The first test case measures the performance of splitting a string using the `split()` method.

```javascript
const str = "2023-08-21_06-06-05;LAeq:94.0 LCeq:94.0 LCpk:97.7";
const firstSplit = str.split(" ");
const afterSecondSplit = firstSplit[1].split(":")[1];
```

In this test case, the input string `str` is split into two parts using the space character as a delimiter. The resulting arrays are then processed further to extract a specific substring.

**Test Case 2: "substring"**

The second test case measures the performance of extracting a substring from a string using the `search()` and `substring()` methods.

```javascript
const str = "2023-08-21_06-06-05;LAeq:94.0 LCeq:94.0 LCpk:97.7";
let s = str.search("LCeq") + 5;
const sub = str.substring(s, s + 4);
```

In this test case, the `search()` method is used to find the index of the substring "LCeq" in the input string `str`. The resulting index is then added to 5 using integer arithmetic. Finally, the `substring()` method is used to extract a 4-character substring starting from the calculated index.

**Comparison and Considerations**

The two test cases compare the performance of different approaches for string manipulation:

1. **Splitting a string**: The first test case measures the time taken to split a string using the `split()` method.
2. **Substring extraction**: The second test case measures the time taken to extract a substring from a string using the `search()` and `substring()` methods.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Splitting a string**:
	* Pros: Simple and efficient, as it uses built-in array method.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for very large strings or performance-critical applications.
2. **Substring extraction using search() and substring():**
	* Pros: Can be more flexible, as it allows searching for any pattern in the string.
	* Cons: May be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of regular expression matching.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no explicit libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `search()` method uses a regular expression under the hood, which is a built-in JavaScript feature.

No special JS features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to optimize string manipulation performance, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Using native methods**: Look into using native methods like `String.prototype.split()`, `String.prototype.indexOf()`, and `String.prototype.substring()` for better performance.
2. **Optimized libraries**: Explore optimized JavaScript libraries like `lodash` or `fast-regex` that provide efficient string manipulation functions.
3. **In-place algorithms**: Consider implementing in-place algorithms, which process data without creating intermediate arrays, to reduce memory overhead.

By understanding the trade-offs between different approaches and considering alternative methods, you can optimize your code for better performance and efficiency.

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/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/117.0.2045.43

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	26167260.0 Ops/sec
substring	10753409.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

splittt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs substring

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

substring

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):