Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test467
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pad vs math
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var example = [0, 23, 3, 5, 64, 65, 8, 2, 5, 7, 3, 6, 8, 3, 7, 2, 7, 8, 8, 2, 34, 5, 7, 55, 200, 235];
Tests:
pad
var result = example.reduce((str, byte) => str + byte.toString(16).padStart(2, '0'), '');
math
var result = example.reduce((str, byte) => str + (byte < 16 ? '0' : '') + byte.toString(16), '');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pad
math
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):
**Benchmark Explanation** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, where two tests are compared: `math` and `pad`. The benchmark is focused on the performance of string manipulation using different approaches. **Test 1: math** In this test, a reduction operation is performed on an array containing hexadecimal byte values. The goal is to concatenate these bytes into a single string, padding each byte with leading zeros if necessary. The benchmark definition code: ```javascript var result = example.reduce((str, byte) => str + (byte < 16 ? '0' : '') + byte.toString(16), ''); ``` This approach uses the built-in `reduce` method and a callback function to concatenate the bytes. The `(byte < 16 ? '0' : '')` expression pads each byte with leading zeros if it's less than 16. **Test 2: pad** In this test, another reduction operation is performed on the same array, but this time, the `padStart(2, '0')` method is used to concatenate the bytes. This approach explicitly pads each byte with leading zeros. The benchmark definition code: ```javascript var result = example.reduce((str, byte) => str + byte.toString(16).padStart(2, '0'), ''); ``` **Comparison and Considerations** Both tests aim to measure the performance of string manipulation in JavaScript. However, they differ in their approach: * **math**: Uses a callback function with conditional padding. + Pros: Simple and concise code. + Cons: May introduce overhead due to the conditional statement. * **pad**: Uses the `padStart(2, '0')` method. + Pros: More explicit and efficient padding. + Cons: Requires the use of a built-in method. In terms of performance, the `pad` approach is likely to be faster since it uses an optimized method for padding strings. However, both approaches should be similarly performant in modern JavaScript engines. **Library** There are no specific libraries used in this benchmark. The `reduce` method and `toString(16)` function are built-in JavaScript methods. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `reduce`, `padStart`, and `toString(16)` methods. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, you could try using other string manipulation approaches, such as: * Using the `join()` method with a custom separator * Implementing a loop-based concatenation approach * Comparing performance of different string padding libraries (e.g., lodash's `padStart()`)
Related benchmarks:
using .length within and out of for loop
splice vs length
splice vs length 2
set.has vs. array.includes bigger sample
Javascript native forEach vs _.forEach
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?