Benchmark: js split vs substring

Script Preparation code:

s = "asdsasd()"

Tests:

split
s.split("(")[0]
substring
s.substring(0, s.indexOf("("))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
substring

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: `String.prototype.split()` and `String.prototype.substring()`. These are both string manipulation methods in JavaScript, but they serve different purposes.

**What options are being compared?**

The two options being compared are:

1. `split()`: This method splits a string into an array of substrings using a specified separator (in this case, the opening parenthesis `(`). The resulting array contains all the substrings on either side of the separator.
2. `substring()`: This method extracts a part of a string from another string, starting at a specified position and ending at a specified length.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

*   **`split()`**: Pros:
    *   More flexible: can be used to split strings based on multiple separators.
    *   Can return an array of substrings.
Cons:
    *   More computationally expensive than `substring()`, as it involves creating a new array and iterating over the original string.
*   **`substring()`**: Pros:
    *   Faster and more efficient than `split()`.
    *   Simplifies code when all you need to do is extract a small part of a string.

However, there are cases where `split()` might be preferable, such as when working with strings that contain multiple separators. In contrast, `substring()` can become cumbersome if the desired substring range is complex or if you need to perform multiple extractions from the same string.

**Other considerations:**

The benchmark takes into account factors like browser version and device platform to ensure fair comparisons. It also measures the number of executions per second, which gives us an idea of each method's performance under load.

In this particular test case, `substring()` performs better than `split()`, likely due to its simpler implementation and fewer overheads.

**Library usage:**

Neither `split()` nor `substring()` use a specific library in their standard implementations. However, if you're using a custom implementation or an optimized version of these methods in your own code, there might be additional libraries involved.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require additional explanations or context.

**Alternative approaches:**

If you need to split strings or extract substrings from a string, here are some alternative approaches:

*   Use `String.prototype.split()` with multiple separators to achieve the desired result.
*   Use regular expressions (`RegExp`) for more complex splitting and extraction tasks.
*   Implement your own custom implementation of `split()` or `substring()` using JavaScript's built-in methods (e.g., `substr()`, `indexOf()`, etc.).

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a clear comparison between two fundamental string manipulation methods in JavaScript: `String.prototype.split()` and `String.prototype.substring()`. While both have their pros and cons, the results suggest that `substring()` is generally faster and more efficient for simple substring extractions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	7199607.5 Ops/sec
substring	16781792.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

js split vs substring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs substring

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

substring

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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