Benchmark: string split and get first element

Tests:

Limit and join
"foo:bar:baz".split(":", 1).join("")
Limit and index 0
"foo:bar:baz".split(":", 1)[0]
No limit and index 0
"foo:bar:baz".split(":")[0]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Limit and join
Limit and index 0
No limit and index 0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark that tests different ways to get the first element after splitting a string using the `split()` method. The benchmark has three test cases:

1. "Limit and join"
2. "Limit and index 0"
3. "No limit and index 0"

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three options:

1. **`join()```**: This option uses the `join()` method to concatenate the array of elements back into a string.
2. **Indexing (`[0]`)```**: This option directly accesses the first element of the resulting array using indexing.
3. **No limit and indexing (`[0]`)```**: This option also uses direct indexing, but without limiting the number of splits.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **`join()```**:
	* Pros: Efficient and readable way to get the first element.
	* Cons: May be slower for very large arrays due to string concatenation overhead.
2. **Indexing (`[0]`)```**:
	* Pros: Fast and straightforward way to access the first element.
	* Cons: May be less readable and more error-prone than `join()`.
3. **No limit and indexing (`[0]`)```**:
	* Pros: Same performance characteristics as indexing, but without limiting splits.
	* Cons: Still may lead to slower performance for very large arrays.

**Library Use**

None of the test cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that `split()` is a built-in JavaScript method, and all three options rely on this method.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax. The code is straightforward and easy to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **RegEx**: Instead of using `split()`, you could use a regular expression to extract the first element.
2. **Array.prototype.at()**: This method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019 and provides a more readable way to access array elements at specific indices.
3. **Template literals**: You could use template literals to concatenate strings instead of `join()`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant for this specific benchmark, but they can be useful when exploring different approaches to string manipulation in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.66 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Limit and join	2919070.5 Ops/sec
Limit and index 0	3488636.0 Ops/sec
No limit and index 0	6245210.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string split and get first element (version: 0)

Different ways of getting the first index after a split

Comparing performance of: Limit and join vs Limit and index 0 vs No limit and index 0

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Limit and join

Limit and index 0

No limit and index 0

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):