Benchmark: Test class map parsing

Script Preparation code:

value = '#container'

Tests:

split destructure
const [_, name] = value.split('#', 2)
split index
const name = value.split('#', 2)[1]
slice
const name = value.slice(1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split destructure
split index
slice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split destructure	3219638.2 Ops/sec
split index	3231240.5 Ops/sec
slice	6283348.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing how fast JavaScript can parse a string containing an '#' symbol, using different methods.

**Options Compared**

There are three options compared:

1. **Split destructure**: `const [_, name] = value.split('#', 2)`. This method uses destructuring to extract the second part of the string (everything after the first '#').
2. **Split index**: `const name = value.split('#', 2)[1]`. This method uses indexing to access the second part of the array returned by `split()`.
3. **Slice**: `const name = value.slice(1)`. This method uses the `slice()` method to extract a substring starting from the second character.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Split destructure**: Pros: concise, readable, and expressive. Cons: may be slower due to the overhead of destructuring.
* **Split index**: Pros: simple, fast. Cons: may not be as readable or maintainable as the other options.
* **Slice**: Pros: straightforward, efficient. Cons: may not be as clear or concise as the other options.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `split()` method uses a regular expression under the hood, which can be an optimization.

No special JavaScript features are being tested here, but some minor considerations:

* The use of `const` declarations ensures immutability and helps with performance.
* The use of template literals (`#container`) is not being tested explicitly, but it's worth noting that this syntax is used to create string literals with embedded expressions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark using a different approach, some alternatives could be:

* Using `substring()` instead of `slice()`.
* Using regular expressions (e.g., `value.match(/#.*$/)[0]`) for the parsing step.
* Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore` that provides utility functions for string manipulation.

However, it's worth noting that the original benchmark is designed to test the performance of these specific methods, so alternatives might not be directly comparable.

Related benchmarks:

Test class map parsing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split destructure vs split index vs slice

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split destructure

split index

slice

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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