Benchmark: padStart vs splice vs conditional72134573473431

Tests:

padStart
let x = 5; let res = ("" + x).padStart(2, "0")
splice
let x = 5; let res = ("0" + x).slice(-2)
condition
let x = 5; let res = x<10 ? `0${x}` : `${x}`
3623464363
function zeroPad(number, length) { return ("0" + number).slice(-length); } let x = 5; let res = zeroPad(x, 2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
padStart
splice
condition
3623464363

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to pad or prefix numbers with leading zeros:

1. `padStart`
2. `splice` (using string slicing)
3. A custom implementation using a function called `zeroPad`

**Options Compared**

The three options are compared in terms of their execution speed, measured by the number of executions per second.

**Approaches and Their Pros/Cons**

### 1. `padStart`

*   **Pros:** Efficient and concise way to pad numbers with leading zeros.
*   **Cons:** May not be as efficient for very large numbers or strings due to the overhead of the method call.

`padStart` is a string method introduced in ECMAScript 2017 that pads a string with leading zeros. It's designed to work with numeric values and automatically determines the number of digits in the value.

### 2. `splice`

*   **Pros:** Works with any type of string or buffer, not just numeric values.
*   **Cons:** Less efficient than `padStart` due to the overhead of slicing and shifting characters.

Using `splice` involves creating a new string by concatenating the original string with a repeat of the leading zeros. This approach can be less efficient because it creates an intermediate string, which requires additional memory allocation.

### 3. Custom Implementation (`zeroPad`)

*   **Pros:** Can be optimized for specific use cases and may be more efficient than `splice`.
*   **Cons:** Requires manual implementation, which can lead to errors or inconsistencies.

The custom `zeroPad` function uses string slicing to extract the last `length` characters from a number as a string. This approach requires careful optimization to achieve good performance.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the specific requirements of your use case:

*   **Precision and accuracy:** If you need precise control over formatting numbers or strings, the custom implementation might be a better choice.
*   **Convenience and simplicity:** `padStart` is often the most convenient option due to its concise syntax and ease of use.
*   **Performance-critical code:** For high-performance applications, optimizing the implementation of `zeroPad` could lead to significant improvements.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in learning more about JavaScript features and syntax, I'd be happy to explore other topics!

The MeasureThat.net website provides a valuable resource for measuring and comparing performance differences between various approaches to common problems. By examining the provided benchmark results and understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which solution to use in their own projects.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to `padStart` include:

*   Using template literals with leading zeros (`"0${x}"`)
*   Utilizing string formatting libraries like Intl.NumberFormat

For more detailed information on these and other approaches, I recommend exploring JavaScript documentation and tutorials.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 14; Mobile; rv:130.0) Gecko/130.0 Firefox/130.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 130 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
padStart	37910488.0 Ops/sec
splice	1128444160.0 Ops/sec
condition	1163688960.0 Ops/sec
3623464363	1188310144.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

padStart vs splice vs conditional72134573473431 (version: 0)

Measures speed between using padStart and splice and conditional

Comparing performance of: padStart vs splice vs condition vs 3623464363

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

padStart

splice

condition

3623464363

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):