Benchmark: fake-binary - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Conversion
function fakeBin(strNums) { return strNums.split("") .map(num => num = num < 5 ? 0 : 1) .join("") } console.log(fakeBin("123456789"))
Replacement
function fakeBin2(x) { return x.replace(/\d/g, n => "0000011111"[n]) } console.log(fakeBin2("987654321"))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Conversion
Replacement

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Conversion	391939.2 Ops/sec
Replacement	333657.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark compares two approaches for editing single character values in a string that only contains numbers:

1. **Conversion**: Using `split()`, `map()`, and `join()` to convert characters.
2. **Replacement**: Using `replace()` with a regular expression to replace characters.

**Options Compared**

Both benchmarks aim to measure the efficiency of these two approaches for editing single character values in a string that only contains numbers. The main difference is in the implementation:

* Conversion: Splits the string into an array, maps each number to either 0 or 1 based on its value, and then joins the resulting array back into a string.
* Replacement: Uses `replace()` with a regular expression to replace each digit (`\d`) with a fixed string ("0000011111").

**Pros and Cons**

* **Conversion**:
	+ Pros: Explicit and clear logic, easy to understand and maintain.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating an array and joining it back into a string.
* **Replacement**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of creating an array and joining it back into a string. It also uses a fixed replacement pattern, which might be optimized by the browser's regex engine.
	+ Cons: May lead to unexpected behavior if the replacement pattern is not correctly specified or if it conflicts with other regex patterns.

**Library Used**

Neither benchmark explicitly uses any libraries beyond JavaScript's built-in functions and the `console.log()` function. However, some browsers may optimize the `replace()` method using a regex engine that is specific to those browsers (e.g., Chrome's regex engine).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks.

**Other Considerations**

When running this benchmark on different devices or browsers, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Browser version and configuration
* Device platform (Desktop, Mobile, etc.)
* Operating System
* Network connectivity and latency

These factors can impact the execution speed of the benchmarks due to differences in JavaScript engine optimization, caching, and memory management.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing these benchmarks further, consider:

1. **Regex alternatives**: Investigate whether using different regex patterns or optimizations (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` with a callback function) can lead to better performance.
2. **Array operations**: Explore other array operations like `forEach()`, `reduce()`, or `filter()` to see if they provide comparable performance to the original benchmarks.
3. **Native JavaScript functions**: Look into native JavaScript functions that might offer better performance for this specific use case, such as `String.prototype.replace()` with a regular expression.

Keep in mind that benchmarking is an iterative process, and exploring different approaches will help you find the most efficient solution for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

fake-binary (version: 0)

Tests the efficiency between using .replace() and .split().map().join() to edit single character values in a string that only contains numbers.

Comparing performance of: Conversion vs Replacement

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Conversion

Replacement

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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