Benchmark: jsspltttttttt - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var strTxt = Array(100).fill("@".repeat(128)).join(" "), len = 128;

Tests:

testttttt
var ar = strTxt.match(new RegExp('.{1,'+len+'}','g'));
tesstttt2
var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length; for(i=0,y=0;i<arlen;i++,y=i*len){ ar[i] = strTxt.slice(y,y+len); }
tesstttt3
var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length; for(i=0,y=0;i<arlen;i++,y=i*len){ ar[i] = strTxt.substr(y,len); }
tesstttt4
var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length,i = 0; while(i<arlen){ ar[i] = strTxt.slice(i*len,i*len+len); i++; }
tesstttt5
var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length,i = 0; while(i<arlen){ ar[i] = strTxt.substr(i*len,len); i++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
testttttt
tesstttt2
tesstttt3
tesstttt4
tesstttt5

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 23 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code that splits a large string into smaller substrings. The input string, `strTxt`, is generated using the `Array.fill()` method with a repeating pattern of 128 characters. The length of each substring (`len`) is also set to 128.

**Benchmark Options**

There are four different approaches compared in this benchmark:

1. **`RegExp.match()`**: This approach uses a regular expression to split the string into substrings. It's implemented as `var ar = strTxt.match(new RegExp('.{1,'+len+'}','g'));`.
2. **Manual slicing using `Array` and `for` loop**: This approach splits the string into substrings manually using an array and a `for` loop. It's implemented in two ways:
	* Using `strTxt.slice()`: `var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length;\r\nfor(i=0,y=0;i<arlen;i++,y=i*len){\r\n\tar[i] = strTxt.slice(y,y+len);\r\n}\)`
	* Using `strTxt.substr()`: `var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length;\r\nfor(i=0,y=0;i<arlen;i++,y=i*len){\r\n\tar[i] = strTxt.substr(y,len);\r\n}\)`
3. **Manual slicing using `while` loop**: This approach also splits the string into substrings manually, but uses a `while` loop instead of a `for` loop: `var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length,i = 0;\r\nwhile(i<arlen){\r\n\tar[i] = strTxt.slice(i*len,i*len+len);\r\n\ti++;\t\r\n}``
4. **Manual slicing using `substr`**: Similar to the previous approach, but uses only `strTxt.substr()`: `var ar = Array(Math.ceil(strTxt.length/len)), arlen=ar.length,i = 0;\r\nwhile(i<arlen){\r\n\tar[i] = strTxt.substr(i*len,len);\r\n\ti++;\t\r\n}``

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`RegExp.match()`**:
	* Pros: Efficient use of regular expressions, which can be optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May not be as intuitive or readable as other approaches.
2. **Manual slicing using `Array` and `for` loop**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, especially for developers familiar with `Array` and `for` loops.
	* Cons: May have overhead due to the creation of an array and looping through its elements.
3. **Manual slicing using `while` loop**:
	* Pros: Similar to the previous approach, but with a more traditional loop structure.
	* Cons: May be less readable than other approaches.
4. **Manual slicing using `substr`**:
	* Pros: Simple and concise implementation.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as other approaches due to repeated calls to `strTxt.substr()`.

**Libraries Used**

None of the provided benchmark code uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that in real-world scenarios, you might use libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js for string manipulation and iteration.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code follows standard JavaScript conventions.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to splitting a large string into substrings include:

* Using `String.prototype.split()` method, which is also part of the standard JavaScript API.
* Using `Array.prototype.slice.call()` method, which allows for more flexibility in slicing strings.
* Using a library like `slice-string` or `substring-queue`, which provide optimized implementations of substring splitting.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a straightforward comparison of four different approaches to splitting a large string into substrings. While there are pros and cons associated with each approach, the choice ultimately depends on personal preference, performance requirements, and readability considerations.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
testttttt	29930.5 Ops/sec
tesstttt2	10092.1 Ops/sec
tesstttt3	12460.9 Ops/sec
tesstttt4	21736.1 Ops/sec
tesstttt5	28377.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jsspltttttttt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: testttttt vs tesstttt2 vs tesstttt3 vs tesstttt4 vs tesstttt5

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

testttttt

tesstttt2

tesstttt3

tesstttt4

tesstttt5

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 23 days ago):