Benchmark: iframe vs window

Script Preparation code:

var iframe = document.createElement("iframe");
iframe.src = "about:blank";
document.documentElement.appendChild(iframe);
var _window = iframe.contentWindow;
var iframeSplit = _window.String.prototype.split;
var split = String.prototype.split;
document.documentElement.removeChild(iframe);

Tests:

Native
split.call("a_random_string_test", "");
Iframe
iframeSplit.call("a_random_string_test", "");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Iframe

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/130.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	3942604.5 Ops/sec
Iframe	3909040.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in the provided JSON and explain the different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a small piece of JavaScript code that will be executed multiple times to measure its performance. In this case, there are two benchmarks:

1. `split.call("a_random_string_test", "")` - This is a native JavaScript function call that splits a string into an array of substrings using the `String.prototype.split()` method.
2. `iframeSplit.call("a_random_string_test", "")` - This is a simulated function call that mimics the behavior of the original function, but uses an iframe instead of the native function.

**Approaches**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Native**: The native JavaScript function is called directly using the `call()` method.
2. **Iframe**: A simulated iframe is created and used to call a function that mimics the behavior of the original function.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native Approach**

Pros:

* Faster execution time, as it doesn't require creating an additional iframe object
* More accurate results, as it measures the performance of the native JavaScript function

Cons:

* Requires a modern JavaScript engine that supports `String.prototype.split()`

**Iframe Approach**

Pros:

* Simulates the behavior of the original function in a way that mimics how it would be executed in an iframe
* Can be used to measure performance in scenarios where the native function is not available or is disabled

Cons:

* Slower execution time, as it requires creating and manipulating an iframe object
* May introduce additional overhead due to the simulation

**Library**

In this benchmark, a library called `String.prototype.split()` is being used. This is a built-in JavaScript method that splits a string into an array of substrings using a specified separator.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two approaches: native and iframe.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create similar benchmarks, you could consider using different approaches, such as:

* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js to compare the performance of different string splitting functions
* Creating a benchmark that measures the performance of different JavaScript engines or virtual machines
* Comparing the performance of different string manipulation algorithms, such as regular expressions or array methods

Keep in mind that the approach you choose will depend on your specific use case and goals.

Related benchmarks:

iframe vs window (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Iframe

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Iframe

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):