Benchmark: trim() Access Methods

Script Preparation code:

var str = '                                   wefdwaefrwaef             asadf                  asdfasdfa           asdf '
var str2 = ''
var trim = String.prototype.trim

Tests:

Prototype APPLY
str2 = String.prototype.trim.apply(str)
Prototype CALL
str2 = String.prototype.trim.call(str)
Cached ProtoType APPLY
str2 = trim.apply(str)
Cached ProtoType CALL
str2 = trim.call(str)
Implicit TempObj
str2 = str.trim()
Explicit TempObj
var tempObj = new String(str) str2 = tempObj.trim() delete tempObj

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Prototype APPLY
Prototype CALL
Cached ProtoType APPLY
Cached ProtoType CALL
Implicit TempObj
Explicit TempObj

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.42 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Prototype APPLY	2031349.0 Ops/sec
Prototype CALL	2038613.0 Ops/sec
Cached ProtoType APPLY	2580346.0 Ops/sec
Cached ProtoType CALL	2616805.0 Ops/sec
Implicit TempObj	3459093.0 Ops/sec
Explicit TempObj	1496696.0 Ops/sec

trim() Access Methods (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Prototype APPLY vs Prototype CALL vs Cached ProtoType APPLY vs Cached ProtoType CALL vs Implicit TempObj vs Explicit TempObj

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Prototype APPLY

Prototype CALL

Cached ProtoType APPLY

Cached ProtoType CALL

Implicit TempObj

Explicit TempObj

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A