Benchmark: filter unsafe token

Script Preparation code:

var params = Array.from({length: 30}).reduce((p, n, i) => {
  p['key' + i] = 'value' + i;
  return p;
}, {});

function runTest(fn, cnt) {
	while(cnt--) {fn();}
}

Tests:

Deep Clone
function fixParams(params) { const token = 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; if (typeof params === 'object' && token) { try { const reg = new RegExp(token, 'g'); const str = JSON.stringify(params); str.replace(reg, 'yyyyyyyyyyyyy'); params = JSON.parse(str); } catch (e) { console.log(e); } } return params; } runTest(() => fixParams(params), 10000)
Iterate All keys
function deepReplace(params, regex, replacement) { for (let key in params) { if (typeof params[key] === 'object') { deepReplace(params[key], regex, replacement); } else if (regex.test(params[key])) { params[key] = params[key].replace(regex, replacement); } } } function fixParams(params) { const token = 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; if (typeof params === 'object' && token) { try { const reg = new RegExp(token, 'g'); params = deepReplace(params, reg, 'yyyyyyyyyyyyy'); } catch (e) { console.log(e); } } return params; } runTest(() => fixParams(params), 10000)
Deep Clone, but not parse
function fixParams(params) { const token = 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; if (typeof params === 'object' && token) { try { const reg = new RegExp(token, 'g'); const str = JSON.stringify(params); if (reg.test(str)) { str.replace(reg, 'yyyyyyyyyyyyy'); params = JSON.parse(str); } } catch (e) { console.log(e); } } return params; } runTest(() => fixParams(params), 10000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Deep Clone
Iterate All keys
Deep Clone, but not parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Deep Clone	43.6 Ops/sec
Iterate All keys	89.4 Ops/sec
Deep Clone, but not parse	74.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript engines in replacing or cloning objects with specific properties, specifically using regular expressions.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object that contains the script preparation code and HTML preparation code (which is empty in this case). The script preparation code creates an array of objects `params` with unique keys and values. A function `runTest` is defined to repeatedly execute another function, which takes a variable number of arguments.

The benchmark definition itself is represented by two JSON objects:

*   "Deep Clone": This test case checks if the JavaScript engine can properly clone an object without modifying its properties.
*   "Iterate All keys" and "Deep Clone, but not parse": These tests check if the engine can iterate over all keys in an object and replace values only for specific regular expression patterns.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three different approaches:

1.  **Deep Clone**: This approach replaces or clones objects with specific properties without modifying their structure.
2.  **Iterate All Keys**: This approach iterates over all keys in an object, but only performs replacement operations for a specific regular expression pattern.
3.  **Deep Clone, but not parse**: This approach is similar to the "Deep Clone" test case but does not perform JSON parsing.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **Deep Clone**:
    *   Pros: Provides an accurate measure of object cloning performance without modifying the original structure.
    *   Cons: May be slower due to the need for deep copying or string manipulation.
*   **Iterate All Keys**:
    *   Pros: May be faster since it only iterates over specific keys and performs replacements, reducing computational overhead.
    *   Cons: Does not provide an accurate measure of object cloning performance, as it may skip over certain keys or values.
*   **Deep Clone, but not parse**:
    *   Pros: Combines the benefits of "Deep Clone" with reduced JSON parsing overhead, potentially providing better performance compared to the other two approaches.
    *   Cons: May still be slower than iterative approach due to the need for string manipulation.

**Library Used**

The provided benchmark uses several libraries or functions:

*   `Array.from()`: Creates an array from an iterable object.
*   `JSON.stringify()` and `JSON.parse()`: Convert JavaScript objects to strings and vice versa.
*   `RegExp`: A regular expression engine used for pattern matching and replacement.

**Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses the `var` keyword for variable declaration, which is a legacy syntax in JavaScript. It does not use modern ES6+ features like `let`, `const`, or arrow functions, as those were not present at the time of the benchmark creation.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to measure object cloning performance could include:

*   Using other regular expression engines like PCRE (Perl-Compatible Regular Expressions).
*   Comparing with other languages' string manipulation and object cloning libraries.
*   Utilizing hardware-accelerated JavaScript engines or WebAssembly for better performance benchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and characteristics of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

filter unsafe token (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Deep Clone vs Iterate All keys vs Deep Clone, but not parse

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Deep Clone

Iterate All keys

Deep Clone, but not parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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