Benchmark: binaryStringPad - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

padStart
let b_seq = '11111'; let b_mid = '11111'; let b_time = '11111'; b_seq = b_seq.padStart(12,'0'); b_mid = b_mid.padStart(10,'0'); b_time = b_time.padStart(41,'0');
slice
let b_seq = '11111'; let b_mid = '11111'; let b_time = '11111'; b_seq = ('000000000000'+b_seq).slice(-12); b_mid = ('0000000000'+b_mid).slice(-10); b_time = ('00000000000000000000000000000000000000000'+b_time).slice(-41);
while
let b_seq = '11111'; let b_mid = '11111'; let b_time = '11111'; while (b_seq.length < 12) b_seq = "0" + b_seq; while (b_mid.length < 10) b_mid = "0" + b_mid; while (b_time.length < 41) b_time = "0" + b_time;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
padStart
slice
while

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The `binaryStringPad` benchmark is designed to compare three methods for padding binary strings: `padStart`, `slice`, and `while`. The goal is to determine which method is most efficient in terms of performance.

**Methods Compared**

1. **padStart**: This method uses the `padStart()` method, which pads a string with a specified character (in this case, '0') until it reaches a minimum length.
2. **slice**: This method uses the `slice()` method to extract a portion of a string. In this benchmark, it's used to pad the string by appending zeros.
3. **while**: This method uses a loop to append zeros to the end of the string until its desired length is reached.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **padStart**:
    *   Pros: Simple and concise syntax.
    *   Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods, especially for longer strings.
*   **slice**:
    *   Pros: Efficient use of string manipulation capabilities.
    *   Cons: May have performance issues due to the overhead of slicing a large string.
*   **while**:
    *   Pros: Allows for fine-grained control over padding logic.
    *   Cons: Can be slower than other methods due to the loop.

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that `slice()` method is part of the ECMAScript standard and is widely supported across browsers.

The benchmark also uses a feature called "raw UA string" which provides information about the browser's user agent string. This can be useful for identifying specific browser versions or platforms.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test padding binary strings, you could use other methods such as:

*   Using `String.prototype.padEnd()` method.
*   Creating a custom function for padding strings.
*   Utilizing a library like Lodash that provides various string manipulation functions.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
padStart	5902951.0 Ops/sec
slice	923300032.0 Ops/sec
while	2621927.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

binaryStringPad (version: 0)

testing 3 methods of padding binary string

Comparing performance of: padStart vs slice vs while

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

padStart

slice

while

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):