Benchmark: fake-binary - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function fakeBin(strNums) { 
  return strNums.split("")
                .map(num => num = num < 5 ? 0 : 1)
                .join("")
}

function fakeBin2(x) {
  return x.replace(/\d/g, n => "0000011111"[n])
}

function fakeBin3(x) {
  var result = "";
  
  for (var i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
    if (x.charCodeAt(i) < 53) {
      result += "0";
    } else {
      result += "1";
    }
  }
  
  return result;
}

Tests:

Conversion
fakeBin("123456789")
Replacement
fakeBin2("123456789")
Loop
fakeBin3("123456789")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Conversion
Replacement
Loop

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case named "fake-binary" that compares three different approaches to edit single character values in a string:

1.  **Approach 1: Using `.replace()` and regular expressions**
    *   The `fakeBin2` function uses the `.replace()` method with a regular expression to replace each digit (`\\d`) with a fixed string `"0000011111"[n]`.
2.  **Approach 2: Using `.split()`, `.map()`, and `.join()`**
    *   The `fakeBin` function splits the input string into an array of individual characters using `.split("")`. Then, it uses `.map()` to iterate over each character, applying a transformation that sets non-digit characters to either 0 or 1. Finally, it joins the transformed characters back into a string using `.join("")`.
3.  **Approach 3: Using a loop and character codes**
    *   The `fakeBin3` function iterates over each character in the input string using a loop, checking its ASCII code (`charCodeAt(i)`) to determine whether it's a digit (between 53 and 126). If so, it appends either "0" or "1" to the result string accordingly.

**Options Compared**

The three approaches are compared to measure their relative efficiency in terms of execution speed.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

*   **Approach 1 (.replace() and regular expressions)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Simple to implement
        *   Fast, as the `.replace()` method is optimized for regex operations
    *   Cons:
        *   May not be suitable for large inputs due to performance issues with regex engines
*   **Approach 2 (.split()**, `.map()**, and `.join()`)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Suitable for large inputs, as it avoids regex-related overhead
        *   Can handle non-string inputs (e.g., arrays) efficiently
    *   Cons:
        *   May be slower due to the creation of an intermediate array
*   **Approach 3 (loop and character codes)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Efficient, as it only iterates over each character once
        *   Avoids regex-related overhead and avoids creating unnecessary intermediate arrays
    *   Cons:
        *   May be less readable due to the explicit use of ASCII code checks

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark test case, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, if we assume that the ` YaBrowser/22` browser is using a custom JavaScript engine or has optimized performance features, it might be affecting the execution results.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2022 (ES12) compliance. However, if the test case were to utilize more advanced features like async/await, generators, or Web Workers, it could significantly impact performance and results.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for similar tasks, consider these options:

*   **Regular expression alternatives**: If you prefer a regex-based approach but want to avoid potential performance issues with `.replace()` methods, you can use techniques like String.prototype.replaceAll() or the internationalization API to match and replace patterns.
*   **Non-looping string manipulation**: For larger inputs, consider using more efficient data structures like Buffers or TextEncoder/Decoder APIs for handling binary data.
*   **Multithreading/Multiprocessing**: For computationally intensive tasks on modern browsers with robust multithreading capabilities (e.g., Web Workers), you might achieve significant performance gains by distributing the workload across multiple threads.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.160 YaBrowser/22.5.1.985 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 22 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Conversion	2302533.0 Ops/sec
Replacement	1435714.6 Ops/sec
Loop	7579828.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

fake-binary (version: 0)

Tests the efficiency between using .replace() and .split().map().join() to edit single character values in a string that only contains numbers.

Comparing performance of: Conversion vs Replacement vs Loop

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Conversion

Replacement

Loop

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):