Benchmark: Test123423432 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Raw repeat
function repeat(target, times) { var strLen = target.length * times; var buf = new ArrayBuffer(strLen * 2); var bufView = new Uint16Array(buf); var charCodes = target.split('').map(char => char.charCodeAt(0)); var charCodesLen = charCodes.length; for (var i = 0; i < strLen; i++) { bufView[i] = charCodes[i % charCodesLen]; } return String.fromCharCode.apply(null, bufView); } repeat('asdf', 30000);
Smart repeat
function decimalNumberToReversedBinaryString(dec) { return Number(dec).toString(2).split('').reverse().join(''); } function smartRepeat(target, times) { let ret = ""; let seed = target; // Take a number and turn it into binary. Reverse it so we can iterate small to large // 13 => 1101 in binary => 1011 reversed so the 1s place is at the front let binaryTimes = decimalNumberToReversedBinaryString(times); for (let i = 0; i < binaryTimes.length; i++) { if (parseInt(binaryTimes[i])) { // if bit is set, add the current seed to the total ret += seed; } seed += seed; // double the seed for the next iteration } return ret; } smartRepeat('asdf', 30000);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Raw repeat
Smart repeat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 76 on Mac OS X 10.14.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Raw repeat	350.0 Ops/sec
Smart repeat	186620.7 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 provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the test case. It contains two main sections:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section is empty for both test cases, which means no additional code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section is also empty, indicating that no HTML preparation is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases in the benchmark:

### Raw repeat

This test case uses a simple function `repeat` that takes a target string and repeats it a specified number of times. The test measures how fast this function can generate a repeated string.

```javascript
function repeat(target, times) {
  // ...
}
repeat('asdf', 30000);
```

**Pros and Cons**

* **Pros**: Simple to understand and implement.
* **Cons**: May not take into account any additional factors that might affect performance in real-world scenarios (e.g., memory allocation, garbage collection).

### Smart repeat

This test case uses a more complex function `smartRepeat` that generates a reversed binary string from a decimal number and then repeats the target string based on this reversed binary string.

```javascript
function smartRepeat(target, times) {
  // ...
}
smartRepeat('asdf', 30000);
```

**Pros and Cons**

* **Pros**: May take into account additional factors that affect performance in real-world scenarios (e.g., memory allocation, garbage collection).
* **Cons**: More complex to understand and implement, which might increase the likelihood of bugs or errors.

**Library Usage**

Neither test case uses any libraries explicitly. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) have internal optimizations and implementations for various built-in functions, such as `String.fromCharCode` and `parseInt`. These optimizations might affect the performance results reported in the benchmark.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Neither test case uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. The code is straightforward and easy to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create similar benchmarks for other JavaScript functions, you could consider the following alternatives:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: There are various benchmarking libraries available for JavaScript, such as Benchmark.js, JSPerf, or benchmarkify. These libraries provide a more structured approach to writing benchmarks and can help with reporting results.
2. **Different test cases**: You could create additional test cases that focus on specific aspects of performance, such as:
	* Memory allocation and garbage collection
	* Thread execution and concurrency
	* Asynchronous programming (e.g., promises, async/await)
	* WebAssembly or other low-level languages
3. **Benchmarking engines**: Instead of using a custom benchmarking engine, you could utilize existing ones like V8's `js::benchmark` module or the `benchmark` library from Node.js.

Keep in mind that creating high-quality benchmarks requires careful consideration of various factors, including:

* Clear and concise test cases
* Representative input data
* Accurate measurement and reporting
* Reproducibility and consistency across different environments

By following these guidelines, you can create reliable and informative benchmarks that help developers optimize their code for performance.

Related benchmarks:

Test123423432 (version: 0)

test test

Comparing performance of: Raw repeat vs Smart repeat

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Raw repeat

Smart repeat

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):