Benchmark: Test URI for File Extension

Script Preparation code:

function checkUsingSplit(uri) {
    return uri.split('.').pop() === 'html';
}

function checkUsingEndsWith(uri) {
    return uri.endsWith('.html');
}

function checkUsingSlice(uri) {
    return uri.slice(-5) === '.html';
}

Tests:

Split Positive
checkUsingSplit('/example/path/index.html');
Split Negative
checkUsingSplit('/example/path/index');
EndsWith Positive
checkUsingEndsWith('/example/path/index.html');
EndsWith Negative
checkUsingEndsWith('/example/path/index');
Slice Positive
checkUsingSlice('/example/path/index.html');
Slice Negative
checkUsingSlice('/example/path/index');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Split Positive
Split Negative
EndsWith Positive
EndsWith Negative
Slice Positive
Slice Negative

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to check if a given URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) ends with a specific file extension ('html'):

1. `checkUsingSplit`
2. `checkUsingEndsWith`
3. `checkUsingSlice`

Each approach is compared across two test cases: positive (URI ends with 'html') and negative (URI does not end with 'html'). The benchmark is executed on multiple browsers and devices to determine the execution speed.

**Approach 1: `checkUsingSplit`**

This approach uses the `split()` method to split the URI into an array of substrings, and then checks if the last element of the array (i.e., the part after the last dot) is equal to 'html'. The pros of this approach are:

* Simple and easy to understand
* Works well for URIs with multiple dots

However, the cons are:

* Not suitable for large URIs or those with many dots
* May be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of creating an array

**Approach 2: `checkUsingEndsWith`**

This approach uses the `endsWith()` method to check if the URI ends with 'html'. The pros of this approach are:

* Fast and efficient, as it only requires a single comparison
* Suitable for large URIs or those with many dots

However, the cons are:

* May not work correctly in older browsers that do not support `endsWith()`
* Less intuitive than other approaches, as it requires understanding of string manipulation

**Approach 3: `checkUsingSlice`**

This approach uses the `slice()` method to extract a substring from the URI starting from the last -5 characters. The pros of this approach are:

* Fast and efficient, as it only requires a single slice operation
* Suitable for large URIs or those with many dots

However, the cons are:

* May not work correctly in older browsers that do not support `slice()`
* Less intuitive than other approaches, as it requires understanding of string manipulation

**Libraries Used**

None of the provided code uses any external libraries. The `split()` and `endsWith()` methods are built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS Features**

The provided code uses a few special features:

* String concatenation (`\r\n`) is used to create newline characters.
* Function definitions are denoted by `function` keywords, which is the standard way to define functions in JavaScript.

However, no other special features are used.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered for this benchmark include:

* Using regular expressions (e.g., `/\.html$/`) to match the file extension.
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda to perform string manipulation and optimization.
* Using a different data structure, such as an array of URIs, to improve performance.

However, these alternatives may not provide significant benefits over the existing approaches, and may add complexity to the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Split Positive	10572381.0 Ops/sec
Split Negative	10466105.0 Ops/sec
EndsWith Positive	15066870.0 Ops/sec
EndsWith Negative	17670462.0 Ops/sec
Slice Positive	19015130.0 Ops/sec
Slice Negative	19041702.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test URI for File Extension (version: 1)

Tests methods of checking for a specific file extension

Comparing performance of: Split Positive vs Split Negative vs EndsWith Positive vs EndsWith Negative vs Slice Positive vs Slice Negative

Created: 11 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Split Positive

Split Negative

EndsWith Positive

EndsWith Negative

Slice Positive

Slice Negative

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):