Benchmark: rtu5efdhju52y4rsgd

Script Preparation code:

var str = "some string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string here"

Tests:

charCodeAt(0)
str.charCodeAt(0)
charCodeAt(300)
str.charCodeAt(300)
[0]
str[0]
[10]
str[300]
shshdsh
function isHangul(word) { for (let index = 0; index < word.length; index++) { if (word[index].charCodeAt(0)) return false; } return !!word; } isHangul(str[300]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
charCodeAt(0)
charCodeAt(300)
[0]
[10]
shshdsh

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
charCodeAt(0)	28241088.0 Ops/sec
charCodeAt(300)	28317588.0 Ops/sec
[0]	28218722.0 Ops/sec
[10]	28350028.0 Ops/sec
shshdsh	24613892.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, the options being compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark consists of a script preparation code and an HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case). This means that only the script preparation code is executed before running each individual test case.

The benchmark definition includes six test cases:

1. `charCodeAt(0)`: Testing the `charCodeAt()` method with index 0.
2. `charCodeAt(300)`: Testing the `charCodeAt()` method with index 300.
3. `[0]`: Testing array indexing with a single element at index 0.
4. `[10]`: Testing array indexing with a single element at index 10 (note: this is likely a typo and should be `[300]`, but we'll discuss the actual behavior later).
5. `isHangul(str[300])`: Testing a custom function `isHangul()` that checks if a string is a Hangul character.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the execution performance of different approaches:

1. **Array indexing**: `[0]` and `[10]`
2. **charCodeAt() method**: `charCodeAt(0)` and `charCodeAt(300)`
3. **Custom function**: `isHangul(str[300])`

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Array indexing**:
	* Pros: Simple, fast, and efficient for single-element arrays.
	* Cons: May be slower for multi-element arrays due to array bounds checking.
2. **charCodeAt() method**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for accessing individual Unicode code points.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the `charCodeAt()` method's implementation.
3. **Custom function**:
	* Pros: Can provide additional functionality, such as Hangul character checking.
	* Cons: May introduce performance overhead due to the function's execution time.

**Other considerations**

1. **Array bounds checking**: When using array indexing (`[0]` and `[10]`), the browser will perform bounds checking to ensure that the index is within the valid range. This may add a small performance overhead.
2. **charCodeAt() method implementation**: The `charCodeAt()` method's implementation may vary between browsers, which could lead to differences in execution performance.

**Actual behavior of `[10]`**

Given the provided benchmark results, it appears that the actual test case for `[10]` is likely intended to be `[300]`, as it seems to have a significantly slower execution time compared to the other test cases. This suggests that either:

* The implementation of array indexing in the browser is flawed or has performance issues.
* The `charCodeAt()` method has a different behavior when used with large indices (e.g., `300`) compared to small indices (e.g., `0`).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing string operations might include:

1. **String slicing**: Using the `slice()` method or array indexing (`str.slice(0, 10)`).
2. **Substring extraction**: Using the `indexOf()` and `substring()` methods.
3. **Regular expressions**: Using regular expression patterns to match specific strings.

These alternatives would allow users to test different aspects of string operations and compare their performance with the provided benchmark results.

Related benchmarks:

rtu5efdhju52y4rsgd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: charCodeAt(0) vs charCodeAt(300) vs [0] vs [10] vs shshdsh

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

charCodeAt(0)

charCodeAt(300)

[0]

[10]

shshdsh

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):