Benchmark: Random ASCII alphanumeric string

Script Preparation code:

function randAlphanumCode() {
    const n = Math.trunc(Math.random() * 1e3) % 62;
    return n < 10
        ? n.toString()
        : String.fromCodePoint(n + ( n < 36 ? 55 : 61 ));
}

function randAlphanumChar() {
    const n = Math.trunc(Math.random() * 1e3) % 62;
    return n < 10
        ? n.toString()
        : String.fromCharCode(n + ( n < 36 ? 55 : 61 ));
}

Tests:

Char
randAlphanumChar()
Code
randAlphanumCode()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Char
Code

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks!

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions:

1. **"Random ASCII alphanumeric string"**: This is the name and description of the benchmark, which tests the performance difference between `String.fromCharCode` (or `fromCharCode`) and `String.fromCodePoint` when generating a random ASCII alphanumeric string.

2. Two individual test cases:
   - `"Char"`: Tests the performance of `randAlphanumChar()`, which generates a random character using `String.fromCharCode`.
   - `"Code"`: Tests the performance of `randAlphanumCode()`, which generates a random code point using `String.fromCodePoint`.

**Options compared**:

* **`fromCharCode`**: Uses the `charCodeAt()` method to get the Unicode code point of a character, and then passes it to `String.fromCharCode()` to convert it back to a string.
* **`String.fromCodePoint`**: Takes a Unicode code point as an argument and returns a string representing that code point.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **`fromCharCode`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More human-readable and easier to read
        *   Can be faster for simple cases, since it doesn't require encoding
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires `charCodeAt()` method, which can be slower than direct encoding with `String.fromCodePoint`
*   **`String.fromCodePoint`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster and more efficient for larger code points or complex cases
        *   Avoids the overhead of `charCodeAt()` method
    *   Cons:
        *   Less human-readable and may be harder to read

In general, if you need a simple, human-readable solution, `fromCharCode` might be sufficient. However, for more complex cases or performance-critical applications, `String.fromCodePoint` is likely a better choice.

**Library:**

There isn't a specific library mentioned in the provided JSON. The functions used (`randAlphanumChar()` and `randAlphanumCode()`) are custom-written functions that generate random ASCII alphanumeric strings using `charCodeAt()` or `fromCodePoint`, respectively.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None of the code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for generating a simple string. If you need to test specific features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers, these benchmark definitions aren't suitable.

**Alternatives:**

For creating similar benchmarks, you could consider testing:

*   **String.prototype.repeat()**: Measures the performance of repeating strings using `repeat()` method.
*   **Text encoding and decoding**: Tests the performance of encoding and decoding text using UTF-8 or other encodings (e.g., `btoa()`/`atob()`).
*   **Regular expressions**: Compares the performance of different regular expression patterns and methods for matching and searching strings.

Feel free to explore these alternatives if you'd like to create more benchmarks!

Related benchmarks:

Random ASCII alphanumeric string (version: 0)

Test performance difference between fromCodePoint vs fromCharCode when generating a random string consisting of only ASCII numbers/letters.

Comparing performance of: Char vs Code

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Char

Code

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):