Benchmark: js 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)
var str3 = randomString(100000000)

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)
slice-3
var result1 = str2.slice(1, 30000000) var result2 = str2.slice(28999000, 69999000) var result3 = str2.slice(67000000, 99999000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice-1
slice-2
slice-3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/147.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slice-1	194752768.0 Ops/sec
slice-2	191149904.0 Ops/sec
slice-3	193108032.0 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 and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript's `slice()` method on different strings of varying lengths.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates three random strings: `str1`, `str2`, and `str3` with lengths 100, 100000, and 100000000 respectively. These strings are used as input for the `slice()` method in various test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

1. **slice-1**: Tests the performance of `str1.slice(1, 3)` and `str1.slice(4, 6)`.
2. **slice-2**: Tests the performance of `str2.slice(1, 30000)` and `str2.slice(28999, 69999)`.
3. **slice-3**: Tests the performance of `str2.slice(1, 30000000)` and `str2.slice(28999000, 69999000)`.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches:

A) **Fixed Range**: The first approach in each test case uses a fixed range for slicing, e.g., `str1.slice(1, 3)` or `str2.slice(1, 30000)`. This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform constant-time slicing operations.

B) **Non-Uniform Range**: The second approach in each test case uses a non-uniform range for slicing, e.g., `str1.slice(4, 6)` or `str2.slice(28999, 69999)`. This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform variable-time slicing operations.

C) **Large Range**: The third approach in each test case uses an extremely large range for slicing, e.g., `str1.slice(1, 3)` or `str2.slice(1, 30000000)`. This approach is likely intended to stress the JavaScript engine's ability to perform high-performance slicing operations.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Fixed Range**: This approach is simple to implement and can provide a good baseline for performance testing. However, it may not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios where slicing ranges are often non-uniform.
* **Non-Uniform Range**: This approach can provide a more realistic representation of real-world usage scenarios, but it may require more computational resources due to the variable-time nature of the slicing operations.
* **Large Range**: This approach can be stressful on the JavaScript engine's performance, but it may not be representative of typical use cases.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 108 as the browser and Mac OS X 10.15.7 as the operating system. Running the benchmark with different browsers and operating systems could provide additional insights into performance differences.
* The benchmark does not include any error handling or edge cases, which may impact the results in a real-world scenario.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite: A collection of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of the V8 engine used in Chrome and Node.js.
* jsPerf: A tool for comparing the performance of different JavaScript code snippets.
* BenchmarkJS: A benchmarking library for Node.js that provides a simple way to write and run performance tests.

In conclusion, this benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript's `slice()` method on different strings of varying lengths. The comparison options highlight both fixed and non-uniform ranges, as well as extremely large ranges, which can provide valuable insights into the engine's performance capabilities.

Related benchmarks:

js slice performance (version: 0)

show slice performance

Comparing performance of: slice-1 vs slice-2 vs slice-3

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

slice-1

slice-2

slice-3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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