Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
startsWith 1234
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
abcdefgh_ vs abcdefgh
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
abcdefgh_
"abcdefgh_asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf1234123412341234".startsWith("abcdefgh_")
abcdefgh
"abcdefghasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf1234123412341234".startsWith("abcdefgh_")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
abcdefgh_
abcdefgh
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined as a JavaScript function that checks if a given string starts with a specified prefix. The `startsWith` method is used to achieve this. The two test cases differ only in the length of the prefix (4 characters vs 11 characters). **Options Compared** There are three options being compared: 1. **Short Prefix**: `"abcdefgh_".startsWith("abcdefgh")` 2. **Long Prefix**: `"abcdefghasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf1234123412341234".startsWith("abcdefgh_")` The benchmark tests how fast the JavaScript engine can execute this `startsWith` method on both prefixes. **Pros and Cons** **Short Prefix:** Pros: * Faster execution time (as there are fewer characters to compare) * May be a better representative of everyday usage scenarios Cons: * May not accurately reflect performance under heavy prefix variations * Could lead to biased results if the benchmark is dominated by this shorter prefix **Long Prefix:** Pros: * More representative of real-world use cases, where prefixes can vary greatly in length * Provides a more comprehensive understanding of the engine's performance under varying prefix lengths Cons: * Slower execution time due to the longer comparison * May lead to overestimation or underestimation of actual performance if the benchmark is skewed by this longer prefix **Other Considerations** The benchmark uses a simple `startsWith` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function. This simplifies the test and focuses on the engine's execution speed. **Library Usage** None. **Special JS Features/Syntax** None mentioned in this specific benchmark. **Benchmark Preparation Code** Not provided, as it's part of the Benchmark Definition json. **Other Alternatives** Alternatives to this benchmark might include: 1. **Regex-based benchmarks**: Using regular expressions (regex) instead of the `startsWith` method could provide a different perspective on performance. 2. **String concatenation benchmarks**: Testing string concatenation methods, such as `+` or `String.fromCharCode()`, could highlight differences in string manipulation efficiency. 3. **Regular expression-based strings**: Creating benchmarks with more complex regex patterns and varying input lengths could simulate real-world use cases better. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to this benchmark, but they can provide valuable insights into JavaScript engine performance under different scenarios.
Related benchmarks:
indexOf vs substr vs startsWith
startsWith vs inlcudes
startsWith vs inlcudes v2
test start with v2
test start with v3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?