Benchmark: js slice performance

Script Preparation code:

function randomString(e) {    
    e = e || 32;
    var t = "ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTWXYZabcdefhijkmnprstwxyz2345678",
    a = t.length,
    n = "";
    for (i = 0; i < e; i++) n += t.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * a));
    return n
}
var str1 = randomString(100)
var str2 = randomString(100000)
var str3 = randomString(100000000)

AخA
 
function randomString(e) {        e = e || 32;    var t = "ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTWXYZabcdefhijkmnprstwxyz2345678",    a = t.length,    n = "";    for (i = 0; i < e; i++) n += t.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * a));    return n}var str1 = randomString(100)var str2 = randomString(100000)var str3 = randomString(100000000)

Tests:

slice-1

var result1 = str1.slice(1, 3)
var result2 = str1.slice(4, 6)
var result3 = str1.slice(7, 10)

 
var result1 = str1.slice(1, 3)var result2 = str1.slice(4, 6)var result3 = str1.slice(7, 10)

slice-2

var result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000)
var result2 = str2.slice(28999, 69999)
var result3 = str2.slice(67000, 99999)

 
var result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000)var result2 = str2.slice(28999, 69999)var result3 = str2.slice(67000, 99999)

slice-3

var result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000000)
var result2 = str2.slice(28999000, 69999000)
var result3 = str2.slice(67000000, 99999000)

 
var result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000000)var result2 = str2.slice(28999000, 69999000)var result3 = str2.slice(67000000, 99999000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
slice-1
slice-2
slice-3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice-1	32937148.0 Ops/sec
slice-2	32112870.0 Ops/sec
slice-3	31549872.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript's slice() method on different strings of varying lengths.

Script Preparation Code

The script preparation code generates three random strings: str1, str2, and str3 with lengths 100, 100000, and 100000000 respectively. These strings are used as input for the slice() method in various test cases.

Html Preparation Code

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

Individual Test Cases

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

slice-1: Tests the performance of str1.slice(1, 3) and str1.slice(4, 6).
slice-2: Tests the performance of str2.slice(1, 30000) and str2.slice(28999, 69999).
slice-3: Tests the performance of str2.slice(1, 30000000) and str2.slice(28999000, 69999000).

Comparison Options

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches:

A) Fixed Range: The first approach in each test case uses a fixed range for slicing, e.g., str1.slice(1, 3) or str2.slice(1, 30000). This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform constant-time slicing operations.

B) Non-Uniform Range: The second approach in each test case uses a non-uniform range for slicing, e.g., str1.slice(4, 6) or str2.slice(28999, 69999). This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform variable-time slicing operations.

C) Large Range: The third approach in each test case uses an extremely large range for slicing, e.g., str1.slice(1, 3) or str2.slice(1, 30000000). This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform high-performance slicing operations.

Pros and Cons

Fixed Range: This approach is simple to implement and can provide a good baseline for performance testing. However, it may not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios where slicing ranges are often non-uniform.
Non-Uniform Range: This approach can provide a more realistic representation of real-world usage scenarios, but it may require more computational resources due to the variable-time nature of the slicing operations.
Large Range: This approach can be stressful on the JavaScript engine's performance, but it may not be representative of typical use cases.

Other Considerations

The benchmark uses Chrome 108 as the browser and Mac OS X 10.15.7 as the operating system. Running the benchmark with different browsers and operating systems could provide additional insights into performance differences.
The benchmark does not include any error handling or edge cases, which may impact the results in a real-world scenario.

Alternatives

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

V8 Benchmark Suite: A collection of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of the V8 engine used in Chrome and Node.js.
jsPerf: A tool for comparing the performance of different JavaScript code snippets.
BenchmarkJS: A benchmarking library for Node.js that provides a simple way to write and run performance tests.

In conclusion, this benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript's slice() method on different strings of varying lengths. The comparison options highlight both fixed and non-uniform ranges, as well as extremely large ranges, which can provide valuable insights into the engine's performance capabilities.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript's `slice()` method on different strings of varying lengths.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates three random strings: `str1`, `str2`, and `str3` with lengths 100, 100000, and 100000000 respectively. These strings are used as input for the `slice()` method in various test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

1. **slice-1**: Tests the performance of `str1.slice(1, 3)` and `str1.slice(4, 6)`.
2. **slice-2**: Tests the performance of `str2.slice(1, 30000)` and `str2.slice(28999, 69999)`.
3. **slice-3**: Tests the performance of `str2.slice(1, 30000000)` and `str2.slice(28999000, 69999000)`.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches:

A) **Fixed Range**: The first approach in each test case uses a fixed range for slicing, e.g., `str1.slice(1, 3)` or `str2.slice(1, 30000)`. This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform constant-time slicing operations.

B) **Non-Uniform Range**: The second approach in each test case uses a non-uniform range for slicing, e.g., `str1.slice(4, 6)` or `str2.slice(28999, 69999)`. This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform variable-time slicing operations.

C) **Large Range**: The third approach in each test case uses an extremely large range for slicing, e.g., `str1.slice(1, 3)` or `str2.slice(1, 30000000)`. This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform high-performance slicing operations.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Fixed Range**: This approach is simple to implement and can provide a good baseline for performance testing. However, it may not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios where slicing ranges are often non-uniform.
* **Non-Uniform Range**: This approach can provide a more realistic representation of real-world usage scenarios, but it may require more computational resources due to the variable-time nature of the slicing operations.
* **Large Range**: This approach can be stressful on the JavaScript engine's performance, but it may not be representative of typical use cases.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 108 as the browser and Mac OS X 10.15.7 as the operating system. Running the benchmark with different browsers and operating systems could provide additional insights into performance differences.
* The benchmark does not include any error handling or edge cases, which may impact the results in a real-world scenario.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite: A collection of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of the V8 engine used in Chrome and Node.js.
* jsPerf: A tool for comparing the performance of different JavaScript code snippets.
* BenchmarkJS: A benchmarking library for Node.js that provides a simple way to write and run performance tests.

In conclusion, this benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript's `slice()` method on different strings of varying lengths. The comparison options highlight both fixed and non-uniform ranges, as well as extremely large ranges, which can provide valuable insights into the engine's performance capabilities.

Related benchmarks:

js slice performance (version: 0)

show slice performance

Comparing performance of: slice-1 vs slice-2 vs slice-3

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result