Benchmark: Array split vs string substring ISO String

Script Preparation code:

var s1 = "2021-01-01T01:01:01";

Tests:

Array.split
var n1 = s1.split("T")[0];
Substring
var n1 = s1.substring(0, 10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.split
Substring

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/93.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 93 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.split	7717883.0 Ops/sec
Substring	125782160.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months 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 is testing two approaches to extract a specific substring from a date string: `Array.split` and `Substring`.

**What are we comparing?**

We're comparing the performance of two different methods:

1. **Array.split**: This method splits the date string into an array using the `split()` method, and then takes the first element of the resulting array.
2. **Substring**: This method uses the `substring()` method to extract a specific substring from the date string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

* **Array.split**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for certain use cases, as it avoids creating a new string object.
	+ Cons: Requires creating an array, which can incur overhead. Additionally, if the split character is not present in the string, it will still create an empty array.
* **Substring**:
	+ Pros: Straightforward and easy to read. Avoids creating arrays or objects.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new string object.

In general, `Array.split` can be more efficient when used correctly, but it may incur unnecessary overhead if the split character is not present in the string. On the other hand, `Substring` is simpler and easier to read, but may be slower due to the creation of a new string object.

**Library**

There isn't a specific library being tested here. The tests are using built-in JavaScript methods: `split()` and `substring()`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither approach uses any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If we were to test alternative approaches, some options could be:

* Using regular expressions (e.g., `RegExp.test()`) instead of `Array.split` or `Substring`.
* Using a library like Lodash's `string.prototype.split()` or `string.prototype.trimStart()` for more efficient string manipulation.
* Testing different browsers' behavior using the same test cases.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided code sets up a date string variable `s1` and prepares it for testing. The HTML preparation code is empty, suggesting that this benchmark is purely focused on JavaScript performance.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison between two common approaches to extracting substrings from strings in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Array split vs string substring ISO String (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.split vs Substring

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.split

Substring

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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