Benchmark: ggrt1435werert - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var compressedBase2048 = 'ӌǞĀϲҫਅ৬ҼսŘϔԼǙňఇϴǑෂটӻǖŉරϊǓұѷඊǑŰঅϱԽȈরӋഓɅ٧ԈԔਔƦγଲઔຫξəखĨԌǖƔ༠ӇɉൺĲӬŮਬॿচҴտວ൱ɑƩӿୡɑԥণԬΩƘఉ୦əԥЃӬਗઝԿफԽଠĄԽŘ੬นഷɩखචԫഓʍกȭӂŎঝӼਖએຫπɑஉĤӻཊƘൽ༆'

Tests:

split map
var s = '' for (const c of compressedBase2048) { s+=c }
for loop
var s = '' for (var c of compressedBase2048) { s+=c }
len s
var ln = compressedBase2048.length; var s = '' var i; for (i = 0; i < ln; i++) { s+=compressedBase2048[i] };
splitt
var s = '' let result = compressedBase2048.split(''); result.forEach(c => { s += c });
arrr
var s = '' Array.from(compressedBase2048).forEach(c => { s += c });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split map
for loop
len s
splitt
arrr

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript benchmarks is an interesting task.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition contains a script that generates a large string by concatenating individual characters from another compressed string (`compressedBase2048`). The script uses different methods to concatenate the characters, such as:

1. `for...of` loop: Iterates over the characters of the compressed string and concatenates them to a new string.
2. `for` loop with index iteration: Iterates over the indices of the compressed string and accesses individual characters directly.
3. Array methods (`split()`, `forEach()`, and `push()`): Converts the compressed string into an array, iterates over it using `forEach()`, and concatenates the characters to a new string.

**Options Compared**

The different options being compared are:

1. **`for...of` loop**: Uses the `Symbol.iterator` method of the input string to iterate over its characters.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with index iteration**: Iterates over the indices of the input string and accesses individual characters directly.
3. **Array methods (`split()` and `forEach()`)**: Converts the input string into an array, iterates over it using `forEach()`, and concatenates the characters to a new string.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`for...of` loop**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive syntax, leverages the iterator protocol.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating an iterator object.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with index iteration**:
	* Pros: Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of iterator objects.
	* Cons: Less concise and less readable syntax, requires manual index management.
3. **Array methods (`split()` and `forEach()`)**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive syntax, leverages the array prototype.
	* Cons: May have performance penalties due to the creation of an array.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that some modern JavaScript engines (like SpiderMonkey) may optimize certain built-in functions for performance.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `for...of` loop utilizes the iterator protocol and the `Symbol.iterator` method to iterate over the characters of the input string. This is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The use of `forEach()` and other array methods also leverages modern JavaScript syntax.

**Other Considerations**

* **String concatenation**: Concatenating strings using the `+` operator can lead to performance issues due to the creation of temporary objects. In this benchmark, all options use a different approach to concatenate characters.
* **Iteration order**: The iteration order of the input string may affect the performance and results of the benchmark.

**Alternatives**

For measuring JavaScript benchmarks, you may also consider using other tools or frameworks that provide similar functionality, such as:

1. V8 Profiler (Chrome DevTools)
2. Node.js Performance Analyzer
3. Google's Benchmarking Tool

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split map	854550.2 Ops/sec
for loop	874737.9 Ops/sec
len s	131153.8 Ops/sec
splitt	252098.3 Ops/sec
arrr	669133.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ggrt1435werert (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split map vs for loop vs len s vs splitt vs arrr

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split map

for loop

len s

splitt

arrr

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):