Benchmark: Split string -vs- string array access

Script Preparation code:

var base64Alphabet = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/';
var base64Char = base64Alphabet.split('');

Tests:

Split string
var a = base64Char[0]; var b = base64Char[3]; var c = base64Char[10];
String array access
var a = base64Alphabet[0]; var b = base64Alphabet[3]; var c = base64Alphabet[10];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Split string
String array access

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.

Let's dive into the benchmark test.

**Benchmark Description**
The benchmark compares two approaches to access characters from a base64 alphabet string: direct indexing (using square brackets `[]`) and accessing individual characters using a loop.

**Options Compared**

* **Direct Indexing (`base64Char[0]`, `base64Char[3]`, `base64Char[10]`)**: This approach uses the bracket notation to access specific characters from the alphabet string.
	+ Pros:
		- Fast and direct access to individual characters.
		- No loop is required, making it simpler and potentially faster.
	+ Cons:
		- May result in slower performance due to the overhead of array indexing.
		- Can lead to slower performance if the index is far from the beginning of the string.
* **Loop-based Access (`a = base64Char[0]; b = base64Char[3]; c = base64Char[10];`)**: This approach uses a loop to iterate over the alphabet characters and assigns each character to a variable.
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster for larger strings since it avoids array indexing overhead.
		- Easier to modify or add more iterations if needed.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an explicit loop, which can introduce additional overhead.

**Library Used**
The benchmark uses the `base64Alphabet` variable, which is defined in the `Script Preparation Code`. This variable represents a base64 alphabet string used as the input for the benchmark. The library in this case is not explicitly mentioned, but it appears to be a custom implementation of a base64 alphabet.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in learning more about how the test cases could benefit from modern JavaScript features like async/await, loops with for-of or Array.prototype.map, it's worth noting that these might potentially improve performance due to concurrency.

**Alternative Approaches**
Some alternative approaches that could be considered in a real-world scenario:

* **Regex-based approach**: Instead of using direct indexing or loop-based access, you could use regular expressions (regex) to extract specific characters from the alphabet string. This approach would likely be slower than direct indexing but provides more flexibility.
* **String slicing approach**: Another alternative is to use string slicing (`base64Char.slice(0, 3)` and `base64Char.slice(10, 13)`) instead of loop-based access or direct indexing.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have varying performance characteristics depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Split string -vs- string array access (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Split string vs String array access

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Split string

String array access

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):