Benchmark: Dummy Test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Test 1
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { var a = "aaa;bbb;ccc"; a.split(";").forEach(function() { //... }); }
Test 2
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { var a = "aaa;bbb;ccc"; var b = a.split(";"); b.forEach(function() { //... }); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test 1
Test 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for understanding the efficiency of your code, especially when comparing different libraries or approaches.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test with two individual test cases. To explain what's being tested, let's break down each test case:

**Test Case 1**

This test case is attempting to measure the performance of a JavaScript loop that iterates over an array of strings using `split()` and `forEach()`. The code is as follows:
```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  var a = "aaa;bbb;ccc";
  a.split(";").forEach(function() {
    // ...
  });
}
```
**Test Case 2**

This test case is similar to the first one, but with a slight difference. Instead of using `split()` directly on the string `a`, it assigns the result of `split()` to a separate variable `b` and then uses `forEach()` on that array:
```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  var a = "aaa;bbb;ccc";
  var b = a.split(";");
  b.forEach(function() {
    // ...
  });
}
```
Now, let's discuss the options being compared:

1. **Split and foreach**: This is the original implementation using `split()` directly on the string.
2. **Assign split result to variable**: By assigning the result of `split()` to a separate variable `b`, this test case avoids the overhead of re-assigning the result in each iteration.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Split and foreach**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and likely familiar to most developers.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to repeated string manipulation and potential performance issues with large arrays.
* **Assign split result to variable**:
	+ Pros: Can reduce performance overhead by avoiding repeated string manipulation and re-assignment.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional step of assigning the result to a variable, which may add complexity.

**Library usage**

In both test cases, there is no explicit library used. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome) have built-in optimizations for array methods like `split()` and `forEach()`. These optimizations can impact the performance of your code.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in these test cases. The focus is on comparing different approaches to iterating over an array of strings.

**Alternative alternatives**

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

1. **Use `Array.prototype.map()`**: Instead of using `forEach()`, you can use `map()` to create a new array with the desired output.
```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  var a = "aaa;bbb;ccc";
  a.split(";").map(function() {
    // ...
  });
}
```
2. **Use `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: You can also use `reduce()` to iterate over the array and accumulate the results.
```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  var a = "aaa;bbb;ccc";
  a.split(";").reduce(function(result) {
    // ...
    return result;
  }, []);
}
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or complexity depending on your specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 52 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test 1	3196.5 Ops/sec
Test 2	3206.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Dummy Test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test 1 vs Test 2

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Test 1

Test 2

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):