Benchmark: Slice vs Split (for title names)

Tests:

Slice using indexOf
document.title.slice(0, document.title.indexOf(' -'));
Split using array
document.title.split(' -')[0];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Slice using indexOf
Split using 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 break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents the JavaScript code that will be executed by both approaches being compared. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. `document.title.slice(0, document.title.indexOf(' -'))`: This code uses the `slice()` method to extract a substring from `document.title`. The `indexOf()` method is used to find the index of the string `' -'` in `document.title`, and then `slice()` extracts the characters before that index.
2. `document.title.split(' -')[0]`: This code uses the `split()` method to split `document.title` into an array of substrings separated by `' -'`. The `[0]` index is used to access the first element of the resulting array, which is the substring before the separator.

**Comparison**

The two approaches are compared in terms of performance, specifically:

* Which approach executes faster?
* Which approach is more memory-efficient?

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Slice using indexOf**
	* Pros:
		+ More precise control over the extraction process (e.g., extracting characters before a specific separator).
		+ May be faster for smaller strings.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance overhead due to the use of `indexOf()` method, which scans through the string.
		+ May not be suitable for large strings or performance-critical applications.
2. **Split using array**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient and scalable, especially for larger strings.
		+ Less prone to performance issues with separator characters.
	* Cons:
		+ May have more overhead due to the creation of an array and indexing into it.
		+ Requires more memory allocation.

**Library/Language Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit use of any JavaScript library or language feature. However, it's worth noting that `slice()` and `indexOf()` methods are built-in JavaScript functions, making this a purely JavaScript-centric comparison.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and focuses on the performance comparison between two different approaches to string extraction.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for similar string processing tasks, here are a few options:

* Use regular expressions (regex) with the `RegExp.prototype.exec()` method to extract substrings.
* Implement a custom substring extraction function using bitwise operations or arithmetic manipulations.
* Utilize WebAssembly (WASM) and assembly languages like x86-64 Assembly for performance-critical string processing tasks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant modifications to your codebase, and the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability should be carefully evaluated before adopting them.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Slice using indexOf	2492275.2 Ops/sec
Split using array	3662112.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Slice vs Split (for title names) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Slice using indexOf vs Split using array

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Slice using indexOf

Split using 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):