Benchmark: Color Num to Hex - Bit Shift vs String Concat

Script Preparation code:

var r = 1;
var g = 255;
var b = 128;

var hex = function (x) {
    x = x.toString(16);
    return x.length === 1 ? '0' + x : x;
};

Tests:

Bit Shift with Substring
let test = `#${(0x1000000 + (r << 16) + (g << 8) + b).toString(16).substring(1,7)}`;
String Concat
let test = `#${hex(r)}${hex(g)}${hex(b)}`;
Bit Shift with Slice
let test = `#${(0x1000000 + (r << 16) + (g << 8) + b).toString(16).slice(1)}`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Bit Shift with Substring
String Concat
Bit Shift with Slice

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/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Bit Shift with Substring	9564297.0 Ops/sec
String Concat	5699835.0 Ops/sec
Bit Shift with Slice	9682332.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between three approaches for converting RGB colors to hexadecimal (HEX) values:

1. Bit shifting and substring extraction
2. String concatenation
3. Bit shifting with slice operation

**Library and Framework**

None, as this is a standalone JavaScript benchmark.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on the performance comparison of different approaches.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code sets up some constants for RGB values (red `r`, green `g`, blue `b`) and defines a simple function `hex` that converts an integer to a hexadecimal string, padding with zeros if necessary.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case defines a specific scenario:

1. **Bit Shift with Substring**: The color value is calculated using bit shifting (`r << 16` and `g << 8`) and then converted to a hexadecimal string using the `hex` function. The resulting string is sliced to extract only the first 6 characters (using `substring(1,7)`).
2. **String Concat**: The color values are converted to hexadecimal strings individually using the `hex` function and then concatenated together.
3. **Bit Shift with Slice**: Similar to the first test case, but uses the `slice(1)` method instead of `substring(1,7)`.

**Other Alternatives**

If these three approaches were not used, alternative methods for converting RGB colors to hexadecimal could include:

* Using a pre-defined function or library that performs this conversion
* Employing a different algorithm, such as using bitwise operations in a more complex manner

However, since the focus of this benchmark is on comparing performance, it's likely that these alternative approaches would be less efficient and not representative of real-world use cases.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Bit Shift with Substring**:
	* Pros: Can be faster due to the reduced number of string operations.
	* Cons: Requires careful handling of boundary conditions (e.g., edge cases where `substring` would return an empty string).
2. **String Concat**:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand, but may incur overhead from concatenating strings.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the additional string operations.
3. **Bit Shift with Slice**:
	* Pros: Similar to the first approach, but uses a different method for extracting the desired substring.
	* Cons: Still requires careful handling of boundary conditions and may not be as efficient as the first approach.

The benchmark results demonstrate the performance differences between these approaches, allowing users to choose the most suitable method for their specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Color Num to Hex - Bit Shift vs String Concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Bit Shift with Substring vs String Concat vs Bit Shift with Slice

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Bit Shift with Substring

String Concat

Bit Shift with Slice

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):