Benchmark: strkeyinc - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

string concat
const incrementKey = (key) => { let carry = true, result = '', i = key.length - 1; while (carry && i >= 0) { let c = key.charAt(i); carry = false; if (c === '9') result = 'A' + result; else if (c === 'Z') result = 'a' + result; else if (c === 'z') result = '0' + result, carry = true; else result = String.fromCharCode( c.charCodeAt(0) + 1 ) + result; i--; } if (carry) result = '0' + result; else result = key.slice(0, i + 1) + result; return result; }; let i = 1, key = '0'; while (key.length < 2) { key = incrementKey(key); i++; }
array push
const incrementKey2 = (key) => { let carry = true, result = [], i = key.length - 1; while (carry && i >= 0) { let c = key.charAt(i); carry = false; if (c === '9') result.push('A'); else if (c === 'Z') result.push('a'); else if (c === 'z') result.push('0'), carry = true; else result.push(String.fromCharCode( c.charCodeAt(0) + 1 )); i--; } if (carry) { result.push('0'); return result.reverse().join(''); } else { let pref = key.slice(0, i + 1); return pref + result.reverse().join(''); } }; let i = 1, key = '0'; while (key.length < 2) { key = incrementKey2(key); i++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string concat
array push

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for incrementing a string key: using a `String.fromCharCode()` approach and an array-based approach.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is not provided, which suggests that MeasureThat.net generates the necessary setup for each test case automatically. However, we can infer that the scripts are likely to include benchmarking libraries and configuration options to ensure accurate results.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **string concat**: This test case measures the performance of incrementing a string key using the `String.fromCharCode()` approach.
2. **array push**: This test case measures the performance of incrementing a string key using an array-based approach.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the following options:

* String concatenation vs. array manipulation for incrementing a string key
* The use of `String.fromCharCode()` versus manual character increments

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**string concat**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation
* No additional memory allocation required

Cons:

* May lead to inefficient caching behavior due to the creation of a new string object on each increment
* May not handle very large strings efficiently, as string concatenation can lead to excessive memory reallocation

**array push**

Pros:

* More efficient caching behavior compared to string concat, as only a reference to the existing array is updated
* Handles very large strings more efficiently, as array operations are less prone to memory reallocation

Cons:

* Requires additional memory allocation for the array
* May lead to slower startup times due to the creation of an empty array and subsequent push operations

**Library Usage**

The `String.fromCharCode()` approach relies on the built-in JavaScript function `String.fromCharCode()`, which returns a new string created from one or more Unicode code points. This function is used to incrementally add characters to the result string.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is standard in modern JavaScript implementations.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches for incrementing a string key might include:

* Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which provide utility functions for character manipulation and iteration
* Implementing a custom character increment logic using bitwise operations, although this approach may be less readable and maintainable
* Utilizing a different data structure, such as a trie or a suffix tree, to efficiently store and retrieve incremented key values

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string concat	27111.7 Ops/sec
array push	9037.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

strkeyinc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string concat vs array push

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string concat

array push

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):