Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
prefix trimming techniques
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
slice vs replace vs substr
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = '__ctx_client.currency'
Tests:
slice
a.slice(13)
replace
a.replace('__ctx_client.','')
substr
a.substr(13)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
slice
replace
substr
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and its options. The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, where users can compare different prefix trimming techniques. The benchmark tests three functions: `slice()`, `substr()`, and `replace()`. These functions are used to extract or remove prefixes from strings in JavaScript. Here's an explanation of each option: 1. **`slice()`**: This function extracts a section of a string, starting at the specified index (`13` in this case) and returning the selected characters until the end of the string is reached. The `slice()` method creates a new string with the extracted characters. Pros: * **Efficient memory usage**: By creating a new string with the extracted characters, `slice()` avoids modifying the original string. * **Simple implementation**: The algorithm is straightforward and easy to understand. Cons: * **Creates a new string**: This can result in increased memory allocation and garbage collection overhead due to the creation of an intermediate string object. 2. **`substr()`**: Pros: * Similar to `slice()`, it extracts a section from a string starting at a specified index but doesn't create a new string; instead, it modifies the original string in place. Cons: * **In-place modification**: As mentioned earlier, modifying the original string can be problematic due to potential memory allocation and garbage collection issues. 3. **`replace()`**: Pros: * No creation of an intermediate string object; only a single string operation is performed on the original string. * Efficient for simple prefix removal (only matching the first occurrence). Cons: * May not be as efficient when dealing with complex patterns or multiple replacements, due to its algorithmic limitations. **Library Usage:** In this benchmark, none of the provided functions directly use a JavaScript library. However, if we consider libraries that could potentially influence the results: * **`Intl` API**: This is a modern JavaScript standard for handling Unicode normalization and string comparisons. While not directly used in these prefix trimming examples, it might be relevant when dealing with multi-byte characters or other Unicode-related tasks. * **Browser-specific features**: Depending on the browser being tested (e.g., `Chrome 97`), there may be additional features like WebAssembly support that could potentially affect benchmark performance. **Special JS Features/Syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code snippets focus solely on basic string manipulation techniques provided by the built-in `slice()`, `substr()`, and `replace()` methods. **Other Alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative prefix trimming approaches, here are a few examples: 1. **Regular expressions**: You could use regular expressions to extract prefixes from strings. This approach is more flexible but also computationally intensive due to the regex engine's overhead. 2. **String replacement with `indexOf()` and slicing**: An alternative implementation using `indexOf()`, slicing, and concatenation (like `"${a.substring(index)}"`), or even direct string manipulation methods like `"${a[index]}..."`. 3. **Using an iterator or a stream**: If you're dealing with large strings, you could consider using an iterator or stream to process the text one character at a time. Keep in mind that these alternatives will impact performance and might be less efficient than native `slice()`, `substr()`, and `replace()` methods.
Related benchmarks:
Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString vs Custom Format vs Pre-created Intl formatter
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString vs Custom Formatter vs Pre-created Intl formatter
Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex2515
NumberFormat
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?