Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array vs Str split
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Array vs Str split
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Array
var a = ["1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16",];
Str split
var a = "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16".split(" ");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Array
Str split
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach. **What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to splitting an array of strings into individual elements: 1. **Array**: The first test case uses a JavaScript array (`var a = [...]`) and attempts to extract individual elements from it. 2. **String split**: The second test case uses the `split()` method on a string literal (`"..."`), which splits the string into an array of substrings. **Options compared** The two options being compared are: 1. Using a JavaScript array to represent a collection of strings, and attempting to extract individual elements from it. 2. Using the `split()` method on a string literal to split it into an array of substrings. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Array**: This approach has some advantages: * It's more explicit about representing a collection of values. * It allows for easy iteration over the elements using traditional loops (e.g., `for` loop, `forEach()`). * However, it can be less efficient than using `split()` because JavaScript arrays are not designed to be iterated over in the same way as strings. 2. **String split**: This approach has some advantages: * It's often more concise and readable than using an array. * The `split()` method is optimized for this specific use case, making it generally faster than using an array. * However, it can be less explicit about representing a collection of values. **Library usage** There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, some libraries may indirectly influence the results by optimizing string splitting algorithms or providing more efficient data structures (e.g., `String.prototype.split()` might be optimized differently than a custom implementation). **Special JS feature/syntax** The only special feature/syntax mentioned is the use of array literals (`var a = [...];`) and template literals (`"..."`), which are standard JavaScript features. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to test alternative approaches, some options could include: 1. Using regular expressions to split strings. 2. Implementing a custom string splitting algorithm using `String.prototype.replace()` or `Array.prototype.map()`. 3. Testing the performance of different data structures (e.g., `Set`, `Map`) for storing and iterating over strings. It's worth noting that MeasureThat.net already covers some common use cases, so adding more alternative approaches might not be as relevant to the benchmarking process.
Related benchmarks:
Array.from(string) vs string.split("")
Array split vs string slice
JSON.parse vs string.split small array
JSON.parse vs string.split small fixed array
JSON.parse vs string.splitds
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?