Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
String caching 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Cached vs Not cached
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Cached
const string = 'Hello world!'; let result = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { result += string.length; }
Not cached
let result = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) { result += 'Hello world!'.length; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Cached
Not cached
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: caching strings and not caching strings. **Script Preparation Code** There is no script preparation code provided, which means that the test cases are likely isolated and don't require any setup or initialization beyond what's defined in the Benchmark Definition. **Html Preparation Code** There is also no html preparation code provided. This suggests that the benchmark doesn't rely on HTML-specific features or rendering, but rather focuses on the JavaScript engine itself. **Individual Test Cases** The test cases are simple: 1. **Cached**: A string variable `string` is declared and assigned a fixed value `'Hello world!'`. The loop iterates 1 million times, adding the length of `string` to a result variable. 2. **Not cached**: A local variable `result` is declared and initialized to 0. The loop iterates 1 million times, adding the length of the string literal `'Hello world!'` (which is cached in memory) to the result variable. **Library** The test cases don't explicitly use any external libraries beyond what's built-in to JavaScript (e.g., `let`, `const`, `for`, etc.). However, it's worth noting that some browsers may include additional libraries or extensions that could potentially affect performance. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax used in the test cases. The code is straightforward and relies on basic language constructs. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **Cached**: The string variable `string` is declared and assigned a fixed value. 2. **Not cached**: The length of a local string variable is calculated directly from the literal `'Hello world!'`. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each approach: * **Cached**: + Pros: Might be faster due to caching, as the string's length can be reused. + Cons: May not account for cases where the string changes or needs to be recalculated. * **Not cached**: + Pros: Ensures accurate results, even if the string changes or is modified. + Cons: Could result in slower performance due to repeated calculations. **Other Considerations** Some additional factors that might influence performance include: * String length calculation methods (e.g., `string.length` vs. `'Hello world!'.length`) * JavaScript engine optimizations and caching mechanisms * Browser-specific features or extensions **Alternatives** If you were to modify this benchmark, here are some alternative approaches to consider: 1. **Use a dynamic string**: Instead of assigning a fixed value to the string variable, use a function that generates the string dynamically. 2. **Change the loop range**: Increase or decrease the number of iterations in the loop to test performance under different workloads. 3. **Introduce additional variables or data structures**: Add more complexity to the benchmark by introducing variables or data structures that affect performance (e.g., objects, arrays). 4. **Test with a different JavaScript engine or platform**: Run the benchmark on a different JavaScript engine (e.g., Node.js, V8) or platform (e.g., mobile device emulator). These alternatives can help identify specific performance bottlenecks and edge cases that might not be captured by the current benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
TextEncoder vs String hash v2
memo vs no memo
memo vs no memo multiple
memo vs no memo multiple inverted
checking string interpolation vs cache
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?