Benchmark: test benchmark3432

Tests:

test 1
const a = "Omnipotent"; "" + a.substring(0, 3) + "" + a.substring(3);
test 2
const a = "Omnipotent"; "" + a.substring(0, 3) + "" + a.substring(3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test 1
test 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.129 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test 1	48667120.0 Ops/sec
test 2	49759920.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains the script preparation code, HTML preparation code, and name of the benchmark. In this case:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "test benchmark3432".
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark, which is just "test".
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are empty, indicating that no script or HTML preparation code is needed for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are JSON arrays containing two individual test cases:

* Each test case has a unique name (`"Test Name"`).
* The `Benchmark Definition` field contains the same JavaScript code snippet: `"const a = "Omnipotent";\r\n\"\" + a.substring(0, 3) + \"\" + a.substring(3);"`.

This means that both test cases are testing the same JavaScript code snippet, but with different execution results (as shown in the latest benchmark result).

**What is being tested?**

The main question being asked here is whether the browser can execute this specific JavaScript code snippet efficiently.

* The code snippet concatenates and wraps a string using HTML tags. Specifically, it extracts the first three characters of the string `"Omnipotent"` (which is `Om`) and then concatenates them with the remaining part of the string (`nipent`), wrapping the result in `` tags.
* The test cases are comparing the execution performance of this code snippet on different browsers.

**Options compared**

The options being compared here are:

1. Different browser versions (e.g., Chrome 81).
2. Device platforms (Desktop vs. unknown/unknown).

**Pros and Cons of those approaches:**

* **Browsers**: Using different browser versions allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how the code snippet executes across various browsers, which can be important for ensuring compatibility.
	+ Pros:
		- More representative sample size
		- Better understanding of browser-specific performance variations
	+ Cons:
		- Higher execution times due to multiple browser versions
* **Device platforms**: Including device platform information can provide insights into how the code snippet executes on different devices, which is relevant for mobile and desktop applications.
	+ Pros:
		- More realistic representation of real-world scenarios
		- Better understanding of performance variations across devices
	+ Cons:
		- Reduced sample size due to fewer device platforms (e.g., only Desktop in this case)

**Libraries used**

In the provided benchmark definition, there are no explicit library dependencies mentioned. However, some JavaScript libraries might be implicitly used or loaded as part of the browser's runtime environment.

* For example, the `substring()` method is a built-in JavaScript method, but it's possible that other libraries (e.g., jQuery) might also use this method.
* Without more context, it's difficult to determine if any external libraries are being used in this benchmark.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The code snippet uses some HTML tags (``) and the `substring()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax that are not standard across all browsers.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark without using MeasureThat.net:

1. You could write a custom benchmarking script in JavaScript, using the same code snippet and execution logic as before.
2. Alternatively, you could use other benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or JBM (JavaScript Benchmark), which provide more features and flexibility for creating benchmarks.

By analyzing this benchmark definition and test cases, we can understand what's being tested and what options are being compared. This information is useful for software engineers who want to optimize JavaScript performance and ensure compatibility across different browsers and devices.

Related benchmarks:

test benchmark3432 (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: test 1 vs test 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test 1

test 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):