Benchmark: search tests - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1 String().search("interest:") < 0
"notification-domain-res-interest:83baaa33-c7f3-489c-9892-0901e4a000ea".search("interest:") < 0
1 String().split("interest:") !== 2
"notification-domain-res-interest:83baaa33-c7f3-489c-9892-0901e4a000ea".split("interest:") !== 2
2 String().search("interest:") < 0
"notification-domain-res-workqueue:main".search("interest:") < 0
2 String().split("interest:") !== 2
"notification-domain-res-workqueue:main".split("interest:") !== 2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1 String().search("interest:") < 0
1 String().split("interest:") !== 2
2 String().search("interest:") < 0
2 String().split("interest:") !== 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, which are tiny programs designed to measure the performance of specific JavaScript features or functions. The website provides a simple way for developers to compare the performance of different approaches to a particular task, helping them identify bottlenecks in their code.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON data represents a benchmark definition, which includes:

* `Name` and `Description`: These are optional fields that provide metadata about the benchmark. In this case, the name is "search tests" and there is no description.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields specify any code that needs to be executed before running the benchmark. In this case, both fields are empty, indicating that no preparation code is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark definition includes an array of individual test cases, each represented by a JSON object. Each test case has:

* `Benchmark Definition`: This field specifies the JavaScript expression that will be executed during the benchmark. The expressions use two popular JavaScript libraries:
	+ `notification-domain-res-interest` and `notification-domain-res-workqueue`, which are likely custom modules or libraries developed for this benchmark.
	+ The `search()` and `split()` methods, which are built-in string methods in JavaScript.
* `Test Name`: This field provides a human-readable name for the test case.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests different approaches to searching and splitting strings:

1. Searching for the substring "interest:" using the `search()` method on a string literal.
2. Splitting the string into substrings using the `split()` method with a regular expression that matches "interest:".

The test cases use custom libraries (`notification-domain-res-interest` and `notification-domain-res-workqueue`) to measure the performance of these operations in different contexts.

**Options compared**

The benchmark tests two main options:

1. Using built-in string methods (e.g., `search()` and `split()`) for searching and splitting strings.
2. Using custom libraries (`notification-domain-res-interest` and `notification-domain-res-workqueue`) for searching and splitting strings.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Built-in string methods:**

Pros:

* Typically faster and more efficient than custom libraries
* Less overhead and easier to maintain

Cons:

* May not provide as much control or customization as custom libraries
* May not support all edge cases or special use cases

**Custom libraries:**

Pros:

* Can provide more control, customization, and flexibility for complex operations
* May be able to handle edge cases or special use cases that built-in methods can't

Cons:

* Typically slower and more resource-intensive than built-in string methods
* Requires more setup and configuration

**Other considerations**

* The custom libraries (`notification-domain-res-interest` and `notification-domain-res-workqueue`) are likely developed for this specific benchmark, so their performance may be optimized for that use case.
* The benchmark uses a desktop browser (Opera 107) to measure the performance, which may not accurately represent mobile or web applications.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net, you can consider:

* Other JavaScript benchmarking tools, such as JSPerf or Microbench
* Online code editors and IDEs that provide built-in benchmarking features, such as Visual Studio Code or IntelliJ IDEA
* Local testing frameworks, such as Jest or Mocha, which allow you to write and run your own benchmarks on your local machine.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/107.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1 String().search("interest:") < 0	6307323.0 Ops/sec
1 String().split("interest:") !== 2	33694788.0 Ops/sec
2 String().search("interest:") < 0	6919200.0 Ops/sec
2 String().split("interest:") !== 2	33792828.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

search tests (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 String().search("interest:") < 0 vs 1 String().split("interest:") !== 2 vs 2 String().search("interest:") < 0 vs 2 String().split("interest:") !== 2

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1 String().search("interest:") < 0

1 String().split("interest:") !== 2

2 String().search("interest:") < 0

2 String().split("interest:") !== 2

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):