Benchmark: slice x substr x substring

Tests:

Slice
var data = "28/10/2016"; dia = data.slice(0,4); mes = data.slice(5,7); ano = data.slice(8,10);
Substr
var data = "28/10/2016"; ano = data.substr(0,4); mes = data.substr(5,2); dia = data.substr(8,2);
Substring
var data = "28/10/2016"; ano = data.substring(0,4); mes = data.substring(5,2); dia = data.substring(8,2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Slice
Substr
Substring

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a fascinating topic, and MeasureThat.net provides a valuable resource for benchmarking different approaches.

**What is tested in the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents three individual test cases that compare three different string manipulation methods: `slice`, `substr`, and `substring`. Each test case has a unique script preparation code that defines a variable `data` with a sample date string, and then creates separate variables for extracting specific parts of the string using each method.

**Options compared**

The options compared in this benchmark are:

1. `slice`
2. `substr`
3. `substring`

Each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses, which I'll outline below.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Slice**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient than `substring` when extracting a fixed-size substring.
		+ Can be used with positive or negative offsets (e.g., `slice(-3)`).
	* Cons:
		+ Not as flexible as `substr` for non-fixed-size substrings.
		+ Can return empty strings if the offset is out of bounds.
2. **Substr**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible than `slice` when extracting non-fixed-size substrings.
		+ Returns a substring without creating a new string object (avoiding memory allocation).
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than `slice` for fixed-size substrings due to the overhead of calculating the starting position.
3. **Substring**
	* Pros:
		+ More intuitive and readable than `substr`.
		+ Returns a substring without creating a new string object (avoiding memory allocation).
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than `slice` for fixed-size substrings due to the overhead of calculating the starting position.
4. **Raw string manipulation**
	* Pros:
		+ Avoids using built-in methods and can provide insight into native JavaScript performance.
	* Cons:
		+ May not reflect real-world scenarios where built-in methods are used.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, none of the test cases uses any libraries. The `slice`, `substr`, and `substring` methods are part of the native JavaScript API.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. All code is written in standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative string manipulation approaches, consider:

1. **Regular expressions**: Can be used for complex pattern matching and extraction.
2. **String concatenation**: Can be used to build strings from smaller substrings, but may lead to performance issues with large strings.
3. **Native browser APIs**: Some browsers provide native APIs like WebAssembly or Micro-Optimizations that can improve string manipulation performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not always outperform the built-in `slice`, `substr`, and `substring` methods, and their usage may depend on specific use cases and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

slice x substr x substring (version: 0)

slice x substr x substring

Comparing performance of: Slice vs Substr vs Substring

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Slice

Substr

Substring

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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