Benchmark: sanitizes1s6 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

    var s1 = function(key) {
        var result = null;

        /* accept only string */
        if (typeof key === 'string') {
            var chunks = key.split(/\//);
            var idx;

            for (result = [], idx = 0; idx < chunks.length; idx++) {
                var element = $.trim(chunks[idx]);

                if (element.length) {
                    result.push(element);
                }
            }
        }

        return result;
    };

var s6 = function(key) {
    var result = null;

    if (typeof key === 'string') {
        result = key.split(/(?:\s*\/+\s*)+/);

        if (result[0] === '') {
            result.shift();
        }

        if (result.length && (result[result.length - 1] === '')) {
            result.pop();
        }
    }

    return result;
};

Tests:

s1
s1('///// / / // / / / abecadło/123 /// / / z / pieca ///// spadłooooooo / / / /// 5') s1('') s1('/////// // / / / // / / // / // / / // / / // / // / // ///////// // / / / // / / // / // / / // / / // / // / // // /') s1(' //////////////////// a/b/c/d/e/f')
s2
s6('///// / / // / / / abecadło/123 /// / / z / pieca ///// spadłooooooo / / / /// 5') s6('') s6('/////// // / / / // / / // / // / / // / / // / // / // ///////// // / / / // / / // / // / / // / / // / // / // // /') s6(' //////////////////// a/b/c/d/e/f')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
s1
s2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

To explain what is tested on the provided JSON, I'll break down each test case and compare the options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of two JavaScript functions: `s1` and `s6`. Both functions are designed to sanitize input strings by removing whitespace characters. However, they use different approaches:

* `s1`: splits the string into individual elements using a regular expression (`\\//`) and then trims each element using jQuery's `$trim()` function.
* `s6`: uses a regular expression to split the string into individual elements, similar to `s1`, but with an additional step: removing whitespace characters from the beginning and end of the resulting array.

**Comparison**

| Option | Description |
| --- | --- |
| `s1` | Splits string into individual elements using `\\//`, trims each element using jQuery's `$trim()` function. |
| `s6` | Splits string into individual elements using a regular expression, removes whitespace characters from the beginning and end of the resulting array. |

**Pros and Cons**

* **Performance**: `s1` might be faster due to its simplicity and use of built-in functions like `$trim()`. On the other hand, `s6` uses a more complex regular expression, which could lead to slower performance.
* **Code readability**: `s6` is arguably more readable due to its clear and concise syntax. In contrast, `s1` uses jQuery's `$trim()` function, which may not be immediately obvious for developers without familiarity with the library.

**Library: jQuery**

In both test cases, jQuery is used as a global variable (`$`). This allows the functions to use jQuery's utility functions like `$trim()`. However, this also means that users will need to include the jQuery library in their test environment, which might not be desirable for all cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions. They rely on standard JavaScript constructs and libraries (in this case, jQuery).

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to sanitize input strings could include:

* Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which provide similar utility functions for string manipulation.
* Implementing the sanitization logic using only built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `split()`, `trim()`).
* Using a more advanced regular expression approach, such as using a negative lookahead to remove whitespace characters from the beginning and end of the string.

Overall, the benchmark provides a useful comparison between two different approaches to sanitizing input strings in JavaScript. By evaluating their performance and code readability, users can choose the best approach for their specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 56 on Mac OS X 10.12.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
s1	15303.3 Ops/sec
s2	223273.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

sanitizes1s6 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: s1 vs s2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

s1

s2

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):