Benchmark: padStart vs repeat

Tests:

.padStart
let pad = ''.padStart(1000, '1')
.repeat
let rep = '1'.repeat(1000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.padStart
.repeat

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 explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

The benchmark compares two methods for padding strings: `padStart` and `repeat`.

**padStart**

`padStart` is a method on the String prototype that pads the string with characters from the specified character code point (in this case, '1') to a minimum length (1000).

Pros:

* Concise syntax, which can make the code more readable.
* It's a standard method in JavaScript and is widely supported by browsers.

Cons:

* May not be as efficient as other methods for padding strings, since it involves creating a new string with repeated characters.
* Can throw an error if the specified character is not a valid Unicode code point.

**repeat**

`repeat` is a method on the String prototype that repeats the string to create a new string of the specified length.

Pros:

* Efficient and fast, as it simply copies the original string multiple times.
* Can be more efficient than `padStart`, especially for large strings.

Cons:

* Less concise syntax than `padStart`, which may make the code harder to read.
* Not as widely supported by browsers, although it's still a standard method in JavaScript.

**Other considerations**

Both methods have their use cases. For example, `repeat` is often used when working with regular expressions or when you need to create a string that contains a specific sequence of characters multiple times.

**Library usage**

Neither `padStart` nor `repeat` rely on external libraries, so there's no library to describe.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The tests are purely focused on comparing the performance of two standard string padding methods.

**Alternatives**

If you don't have access to a browser (or need to test other string padding methods), you could consider testing these methods using a Node.js environment with the V8 engine, which supports both `padStart` and `repeat`. You could also use online JavaScript sandboxes or IDEs that support these methods.

Keep in mind that the benchmark results should be interpreted with caution, as they may not reflect the actual performance differences between `padStart` and `repeat` in all scenarios. The best way to determine this is to run the tests yourself and see which method performs better for your specific use case.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.padStart	10128657.0 Ops/sec
.repeat	11168527.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

padStart vs repeat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .padStart vs .repeat

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.padStart

.repeat

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):