Benchmark: Split vs new URL pathname

Script Preparation code:

var example = 'https://www.google.com/search?q=example+query+paramas+url&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB926GB926&oq=example+query+paramas+url&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yDQgCEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgDEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgEEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgFEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyCggGEAAYogQYiQUyCggHEAAYogQYiQUyCggIEAAYgAQYogQyCggJEAAYgAQYogTSAQgzOTMxajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8'

Tests:

split
var result = example.split(/[?#]/)[0];
pathname
var result = new URL(example).pathname
Split only using character
var result = example.split('?')[0];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
pathname
Split only using character

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two approaches to extract the URL path from a string: `split()` method with regular expressions (`/[#?]/`) and the `URL` constructor.

The test cases are designed to compare the execution speed of these two methods, both using different types of character splitting (e.g., `/`, `#`, and `?`).

**Options compared:**

1. **Split() method with regular expressions**: This approach uses the `split()` method with a regular expression that matches any of the characters `/`, `#`, or `?`. The resulting array is then indexed to extract the first element, which represents the URL path.
2. **URL constructor**: This approach uses the `URL` constructor, which creates a new `URL` object from a given string. The `pathname` property of this object contains the URL path.

**Pros and cons:**

* **Split() method with regular expressions**:
	+ Pros: Can handle a wide range of URL formats, including those with special characters.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of regular expression compilation.
* **URL constructor**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster for simple URL paths and is generally considered more robust.
	+ Cons: Requires the creation of an additional object, which may incur a slight performance penalty.

**Other considerations:**

* **Character splitting**: The test uses different types of character splitting (e.g., `/`, `#`, and `?`) to account for various URL formats. This is essential to ensure that both approaches perform well in different scenarios.
* **Browser and device specifics**: The benchmark results include data on the browser, device platform, operating system, and executions per second. This information can help identify potential issues or optimizations specific to certain environments.

**Library used:**

In this test case, the `URL` constructor is using a built-in JavaScript library (the Web API). There is no additional external library required.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The tests focus on comparing two fundamental approaches to URL path extraction.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	3156567.5 Ops/sec
pathname	1097117.1 Ops/sec
Split only using character	12560949.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Split vs new URL pathname (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs pathname vs Split only using character

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

pathname

Split only using character

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):