Benchmark: slice performance

Script Preparation code:

function randomString(e) {    
    e = e || 32;
    var t = "ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTWXYZabcdefhijkmnprstwxyz2345678",
    a = t.length,
    n = "";
    for (i = 0; i < e; i++) n += t.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * a));
    return n
}
var str1 = randomString(100)
var str2 = randomString(100000)

Tests:

slice-1
var result1 = str1.slice(1, 3) var result2 = str1.slice(4, 6) var result3 = str1.slice(7, 10)
slice-2
var result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000) var result2 = str2.slice(28999, 69999) var result3 = str2.slice(67000, 99999)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice-1
slice-2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice-1	782887.7 Ops/sec
slice-2	785201.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definitions and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two benchmarks:

1. **slice performance**: This benchmark compares the performance of slicing strings in JavaScript. The script preparation code generates two random strings: `str1` with 100 characters and `str2` with 100,000 characters.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: There is no HTML preparation code provided for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **slice-1**: This test case compares the performance of slicing strings from different positions in `str1`. The slice operations are:
	* `result1 = str1.slice(1, 3)`
	* `result2 = str1.slice(4, 6)`
	* `result3 = str1.slice(7, 10)`
2. **slice-2**: This test case compares the performance of slicing large strings from different positions in `str2`. The slice operations are:
	* `result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000)`
	* `result2 = str2.slice(28999, 69999)`
	* `result3 = str2.slice(67000, 99999)`

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

1. **Fixed slice size**: Slicing strings with a fixed size (e.g., slicing every 10 characters). This approach is likely to be slower because it involves more operations.
2. **Variable slice size**: Slicing strings with variable sizes (e.g., slicing from position 1 to 3, then from position 4 to 6, etc.). This approach may be faster because it avoids unnecessary operations.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* Fixed slice size:
	+ Pros: More predictable performance, easier to optimize.
	+ Cons: May involve more operations, potentially slower.
* Variable slice size:
	+ Pros: Avoids unnecessary operations, potentially faster.
	+ Cons: Performance can be less predictable, harder to optimize.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine used by the browser being tested (e.g., Chrome) provides built-in string slicing functionality.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses a special feature of JavaScript called **string concatenation**. The `randomString` function generates strings using a loop that appends characters to the resulting string, which is not the most efficient way to create strings in modern JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

* **Memory allocation**: The benchmark creates two large strings (`str1` and `str2`) which may impact memory allocation and deallocation. This could affect performance if the browser's garbage collector has to frequently free up or allocate memory.
* **Cache locality**: The benchmark's variable slice size may lead to cache locality issues, where the CPU accesses data that is already cached in memory.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create a similar benchmark, you can use other testing frameworks like JSTestDrive or benchmarking libraries like Benchmark.js. Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different requirements for setup and configuration.

In summary, this benchmark tests the performance of slicing strings with fixed and variable sizes using JavaScript's built-in string slicing functionality. It compares the performance of different approaches to find the most efficient way to slice strings, taking into account factors like memory allocation, cache locality, and predictability.

Related benchmarks:

slice performance (version: 0)

show slice performance

Comparing performance of: slice-1 vs slice-2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice-1

slice-2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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