Benchmark: string vs array - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const input1 = "This is an";
const input2 = ["This","is","an"];

Tests:

test 1
const input1 = "This is an"; input1.split(" ").join("_");
test 2
const input2 = ["This","is","an"]; input2.join("_")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test 1
test 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test 1	10385191.0 Ops/sec
test 2	13726843.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for optimizing code and ensuring good user experience. Let's break down the provided benchmark, its purpose, options compared, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JS features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two approaches to string manipulation: concatenating strings using `join()` on both an array and a string. The test case is designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared in this benchmark:

1. **String Concatenation using join()**: This approach creates an array of strings, which are then joined together using `join()`. This method can be more efficient than concatenating strings directly, especially when dealing with large arrays.
2. **String Concatenation directly**: This approach simply concatenates the individual strings without creating an intermediate array.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **String Concatenation using join():**
    *   Pros:
        +   Can handle large arrays of strings efficiently
        +   Can avoid creating temporary objects or arrays
    *   Cons:
        +   Creates an intermediate array, which can lead to memory allocation overhead
        +   May not be as efficient for small arrays or short strings
*   **String Concatenation directly:**
    +   Pros:
        - Faster execution times due to fewer allocations and operations
        - Suitable for small arrays or short strings where the overhead of join() outweighs its benefits
    +   Cons:
        - May lead to slower performance for large arrays or longer strings

**Library Usage**
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some libraries like Lodash's `join()` function or other string manipulation utilities might be used in the test cases.

**Special JS Features**

None of the test cases utilize any special JavaScript features beyond standard ES6 syntax and built-in methods.

**Other Considerations**
To improve the performance of these benchmarks:

*   Use caching mechanisms to reduce the number of allocations.
*   Optimize data structures for better cache locality.
*   Minimize function calls by inlining functions when possible.
*   Profile the application to identify potential bottlenecks.

For alternatives, you can explore the following options:

*   **Benchmarking frameworks:** Consider using dedicated benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or Benchmark Suite, which provide features like automatic test case generation and result aggregation.
*   **Micro-benchmarking libraries:** Libraries like micro-benchmarks or fast-bench offer optimized implementations for common operations and can be used to create custom benchmarks.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches may vary depending on the specific use case, hardware, and environment.

Related benchmarks:

string vs array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test 1 vs test 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test 1

test 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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