Benchmark: 1df693fa-fdb3-4a94-9030-2e979bfdcb09

Script Preparation code:

function one(val) {
  return val.endsWith(".ts") || val.endsWith(".tsx")
}
function two(val) {
  const x1 = val.slice(-3);
  if(x1 === ".ts") return true;
  const x2 = val.slice(-4);
  if(x2 === ".tsx") return true;
  return false;
}

function three(val) {
  const L = val.length;
  if(val[L-3] === '.' && val[L-2] === 't' && val[L-1] === 's') return true;
  if(val[L-4] === '.' && val[L-3] === 't' && val[L-2] === 's' && val[L-1] === "x") return true;
  return false;
}

Tests:

one
one("hello world.tsx")
two
two("hello world.tsx")
three
three("hello world.tsx")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
one
two
three

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial, especially when it comes to web applications that often rely on dynamic imports and file system interactions.

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test for three different functions: `one`, `two`, and `three`. Each function is designed to detect whether a given input string ends with ".ts" or ".tsx".

**Function 1: `one`**

This function uses the `endsWith()` method, which checks if a string ends with a specified value.

```javascript
function one(val) {
    return val.endsWith(".ts") || val.endsWith(".tsx");
}
```

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Efficient, as it only requires a single call to `endsWith()`, regardless of the input length.

Cons:

* May be slower for very large inputs due to the string slicing operation required by `endsWith()`.

**Function 2: `two`**

This function uses string slicing to extract the last three and four characters from the input string, respectively.

```javascript
function two(val) {
    const x1 = val.slice(-3);
    if (x1 === ".ts") return true;
    const x2 = val.slice(-4);
    if (x2 === ".tsx") return true;
    return false;
}
```

Pros:

* This implementation avoids the overhead of `endsWith()` and can be more efficient for very large inputs.
* It's a good example of how to use string slicing effectively in JavaScript.

Cons:

* Requires two separate calls to `slice()`, which might be slower than calling `endsWith()` once.
* The variable names could be improved for better readability.

**Function 3: `three`**

This function uses the length property and character indexing to check if the last three characters are ".ts" or the last four characters are ".tsx".

```javascript
function three(val) {
    const L = val.length;
    if (val[L-3] === '.' && val[L-2] === 't' && val[L-1] === 's') return true;
    if (val[L-4] === '.' && val[L-3] === 't' && val[L-2] === 's' && val[L-1] === "x") return true;
    return false;
}
```

Pros:

* This implementation is very efficient, as it only requires a single pass through the input string.
* It's an example of how to use length properties and character indexing effectively.

Cons:

* The variable names could be improved for better readability.

**Library: `slice()`**

The `slice()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that returns a new string containing a subset of characters from the original string. In this benchmark, `slice()` is used to extract specific parts of the input string.

Pros:

* Very efficient and widely supported.
* Part of the standard JavaScript library.

Cons: None notable.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

Now, let's talk about alternatives:

1. **Using a regular expression**: You could use a regular expression to achieve the same result as `slice()` or `endsWith()`. For example:
```javascript
function two(val) {
    const regex = /\.ts$/i;
    return regex.test(val);
}
```
This approach is more concise but might be slower for very large inputs.

2. **Using a dedicated library**: If you need to perform complex string matching or pattern recognition, consider using a dedicated library like `regex-js` or `string-match`.

3. **Native string methods**: For some platforms, there might be native string methods that offer better performance than built-in JavaScript methods. For example, in Node.js, you can use the `path.extname()` method to check file extensions.

When choosing an implementation, consider factors like performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

1df693fa-fdb3-4a94-9030-2e979bfdcb09 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: one vs two vs three

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

one

two

three

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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