Benchmark: string of length N

Tests:

literal
var n = []; n.length = 1000; var m = n.join("#");
new array
var m = new Array(1000).join("#");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
literal
new array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It contains the following properties:

* `Name`: A string of length N, which is used to identify the benchmark.
* `Description`: Currently set to null, but it can be useful for explaining the purpose of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are empty in this case, indicating that no special setup code is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark contains two test cases:

1. **Literal**: This test case runs a JavaScript snippet that creates an array with 1000 elements and joins them with the character "#". The resulting string is likely used as a placeholder or for some other purpose.
2. **New Array**: This test case creates a new array of length 1000 using the `Array` constructor and then joins its elements with the same character "#".

**What's being tested?**

MeasureThat.net appears to be testing two different approaches to creating a string of a fixed length by joining repeated elements:

1. **Literal**: In this approach, an existing array is used as the basis for generating the repeating pattern.
2. **New Array**: This approach creates a new array from scratch using the `Array` constructor and then uses it to generate the same repeating pattern.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing two different strategies:

1. Using an existing array (`Literal`) vs.
2. Creating a new array from scratch (`New Array`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Literal**:
	* Pros:
		+ Reuses the underlying array, which might reduce memory allocation overhead.
		+ Can be faster since it doesn't require creating a new array.
	* Cons:
		+ Assumes that the input array is already populated with desired data.
2. **New Array**:
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more control over the generation of the repeating pattern.
		+ Can be useful when working with large datasets where an existing array might not be available.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating a new array, which can be slower and memory-intensive.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested. The code is relatively straightforward and uses standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to design an alternative benchmark, you might consider testing other approaches to generating repeating patterns, such as:

1. Using a `StringBuilder` or similar class from the browser's DOM API.
2. Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `Array.prototype.fill()` or `Array.from()`.
3. Testing different ways of handling errors or edge cases in each approach.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and goals of your benchmark, as well as the capabilities of the browsers being tested.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.18

Browser/OS: Opera 12 on Windows 8

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
literal	121194.3 Ops/sec
new array	44063.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string of length N (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: literal vs new array

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

literal

new array

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):