Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
padding
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
using slice 1 vs using slice 2 vs pad 1 vs pad 2
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
using slice 1
var h = "1"; var m = "1"; h = ("0" + h).slice(-2); m = ("0" + m).slice(-2);
using slice 2
var h = "10"; var m = "10"; h = ("0" + h).slice(-2); m = ("0" + m).slice(-2);
pad 1
var h = "1"; var m = "1"; if (h.length === 1) { h = "0" + h; } if (m.length === 1) { m = "0" + m; }
pad 2
var h = "10"; var m = "10"; if (h.length === 1) { h = "0" + h; } if (m.length === 1) { m = "0" + m; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
using slice 1
using slice 2
pad 1
pad 2
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):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided benchmark is testing the performance of different approaches to pad strings with leading zeros in JavaScript. The tests are designed to measure which approach is faster, and the results provide insight into the execution times for each test case. **Options Compared** There are three options being compared: 1. **Using `slice(-2)`**: This method pads a string by taking the last two characters of the original string and returning them as the new string. 2. **Using conditional statements with string concatenation**: This approach uses an if-else statement to check the length of the string, and if it's less than 2, appends a '0' to the beginning using string concatenation. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Using `slice(-2)`**: * Pros: concise, efficient, and widely supported. * Cons: may not work correctly for strings of length 2 or less (e.g., "01" would be padded incorrectly). 2. **Using conditional statements with string concatenation**: * Pros: works correctly for all string lengths, but can be slower due to the overhead of string concatenation and conditional checks. * Cons: more verbose, error-prone, and potentially slower. **Library** None of the test cases use a specific library. However, it's worth noting that `slice()` is a built-in JavaScript method that returns a new string with the specified characters removed from the end of the original string. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** * The tests only measure the performance of padding strings with leading zeros, not other string manipulation operations. * The results provide a raw execution count per second for each test case, which can be useful for comparing performance. However, it's essential to consider additional factors like system load, network conditions, and browser version when interpreting these results. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing your own string padding code, here are a few alternatives: * **Using template literals**: You can use template literals (e.g., `x = '0' + x;`) to pad strings with leading zeros. This approach is concise and efficient but may not be supported by older browsers. * **Using `padStart()` or `padEnd()` methods**: These modern string methods can be used to pad strings with leading or trailing characters, respectively. However, they might not provide the exact same performance as the original benchmark options. It's essential to weigh the trade-offs and consider your specific use case when choosing a padding approach for your application.
Related benchmarks:
POJO vs Functions w/ loop
set.has vs. array.includes (random string values)
ClassList v6
indexOf > -1 x indexOf != -1
set.add vs array.push maan
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?