Benchmark: Ponder - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function replaceMe(value) {
	var temp = value.replace("(", "")
    	.replace(")", "")
    	.replace("-", "")
    	.replace(".", "")
    	.replace(" ", "");
  
	return temp;
}

function splitJoin(value) {
	var temp = value.split('(').join('');
		temp = temp.split(')').join('');
		temp = temp.split('-').join('');
		temp = temp.split('.').join('');
		temp = temp.split(' ').join('');
  
  	return temp;
}

Tests:

Replace
replaceMe("(210) 555-5555");
SplitJoin
splitJoin("(210) 555-5555");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Replace
SplitJoin

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark and its implications.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small piece of code designed to measure the performance of a specific aspect of JavaScript. The benchmark consists of two test cases: "Replace" and "SplitJoin".

**Test Case 1: Replace**

The "Replace" test case uses the `replaceMe` function, which takes a string as input and replaces certain characters with empty strings. Specifically, it:

* Replaces `(` with an empty string
* Replaces `)` with an empty string
* Replaces `-` with an empty string
* Replaces `. ` with an empty string

The test case measures the execution time of this function on a specific input: `"(210) 555-5555"`.

**Test Case 2: SplitJoin**

The "SplitJoin" test case uses the `splitJoin` function, which takes a string as input and splits it into individual characters. Specifically, it:

* Splits the input string at each occurrence of `(` and joins back the resulting substrings
* Splits the resulting substring at each occurrence of `)` and joins back the resulting substrings again
* Splits the resulting substring at each occurrence of `-` and joins back the resulting substrings again
* Splits the resulting substring at each occurrence of `. ` and joins back the resulting substrings again

The test case measures the execution time of this function on a specific input: `"(210) 555-5555"`.

**Comparison of Approaches**

There are two main approaches being compared in these tests:

1. **String manipulation**: The `replaceMe` function uses string manipulation techniques to replace certain characters with empty strings. This approach can be efficient if the replacement patterns are simple and small.
2. **String splitting and joining**: The `splitJoin` function uses string splitting and joining techniques to break down the input string into individual characters. This approach can be more efficient for large inputs or when multiple operations need to be performed on the string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* String manipulation (replaceMe):
	+ Pros:
		- Can be efficient for simple replacement patterns
		- May be faster than string splitting and joining for small inputs
	+ Cons:
		- May not perform well for large or complex input strings
		- Requires more manual memory management and potential errors
* String splitting and joining (splitJoin):
	+ Pros:
		- Can handle large or complex input strings efficiently
		- Reduces manual memory management and error risks
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than string manipulation for simple replacement patterns
		- Requires more operations on the input string

**Library: None**

The `replaceMe` and `splitJoin` functions do not appear to rely on any external libraries. However, if we were to consider using a library or framework that provides similar functionality, some options might include:

* Lodash (for string manipulation)
* String.prototype.split() and String.prototype.join() methods (for string splitting and joining)

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these test cases. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to benchmarking could include:

* Using a different programming language or framework
* Measuring performance using a different metric (e.g., memory usage, CPU cycles)
* Using a different type of testing (e.g., unit testing, integration testing)
* Comparing performance across multiple platforms or devices

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/72.0.3626.121 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 72 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Replace	799189.8 Ops/sec
SplitJoin	363244.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Ponder (version: 0)

xxx

Comparing performance of: Replace vs SplitJoin

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Replace

SplitJoin

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):