Benchmark: string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string);

Script Preparation code:

var string = "en-US";

Tests:

string.split(RegExp);
string.split(/-/);
string.split(string);
string.split('-');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string.split(RegExp);
string.split(string);

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

string.split(string);

16.5M/s

string.split(RegExp);

10.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ string.split(string);	16,488,803 Ops/sec
string.split(RegExp);	10,292,577 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to splitting strings in JavaScript:

1. Using a `RegExp` object (`string.split(RegExp);`)
2. Using a plain string as the separator (`string.split(string);`)

**Using a RegExp**

In this approach, a regular expression pattern is passed to the `split()` method. The `/-/` pattern matches the hyphen character, and since it's enclosed in forward slashes, it's treated as a regex pattern.

Pros:

* This approach allows for more flexibility and control over the splitting process, as you can create custom patterns using regex.
* It's often faster than using a plain string separator, especially when dealing with complex or edge cases.

Cons:

* Regular expressions can be slower due to their complexity and the need to parse them.
* They may not work as expected in older browsers that don't support modern regex syntax.

**Using a Plain String**

In this approach, a plain string is passed to the `split()` method, which simply matches the specified separator.

Pros:

* This approach is generally faster than using a regular expression, since it's less computationally expensive.
* It's often supported by older browsers that don't support modern regex syntax.

Cons:

* It can be less flexible and less powerful than using a regex pattern, as you're limited to matching the exact separator string.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Complexity of your data**: If you're working with complex or edge cases, a regular expression might provide more control and flexibility.
* **Browsing constraints**: If you need to support older browsers that don't support modern regex syntax, using a plain string separator might be a better choice.
* **Performance-critical code**: If performance is critical, using a plain string separator might be slightly faster.

**Library Usage**

The provided benchmark uses the `string` and `RegExp` functions, which are built-in JavaScript functions. There are no external libraries involved in this test case.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net often explores various aspects of JavaScript performance, including:

* ES6+ features
* WeakMap usage
* Object creation and garbage collection

Keep an eye out for upcoming benchmarks that might cover these topics!

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring more microbenchmarking tools or alternatives, here are a few options:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library that allows you to write custom benchmarks.
2. **JSPerf**: A web-based tool for running JavaScript performance tests and comparing results across different browsers and platforms.
3. **Google's Benchmarks**: A collection of microbenchmarking experiments showcasing various aspects of JavaScript performance, including concurrency and parallelism.

Feel free to explore these alternatives if you're interested in delving deeper into JavaScript performance optimization!

string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string); (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string);`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

string.split(RegExp);

string.split(string);

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string); (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string);

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

string.split(RegExp);

string.split(string);

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string);`