Benchmark: html encode 2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function replaceAllWithShortcut(str) {
    return !(/[<>&"']/.test(str)) ? str :
           str.replaceAll('&', '&amp;').replaceAll('<', '&lt;')
              .replaceAll('>', '&gt;').replaceAll('"', '&quot;');
}

const cachedElementParent = document.createElement('div');
const cachedChildTextNode = document.createTextNode('');
cachedElementParent.appendChild(cachedChildTextNode);

function serializeTextNode(text) {
  cachedChildTextNode.nodeValue = text;
  return cachedElementParent.innerHTML;
}

Tests:

replaceAllWithShortcut
replaceAllWithShortcut("hello world")
serializeTextNode
serializeTextNode("hello world")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
replaceAllWithShortcut
serializeTextNode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
replaceAllWithShortcut	1700537.6 Ops/sec
serializeTextNode	2111543.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JavaScript features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a web-based platform for creating and running JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark consists of two test cases: `serializeTextNode` and `replaceAllWithShortcut`.

**Test Case 1: serializeTextNode**

This test case measures the execution time of the `serializeTextNode` function, which takes a string input and returns a modified version of it after appending a `<div>` element to a text node.

The script preparation code creates a cached `div` element and a text node, then appends the text node to the `div`. The `serializeTextNode` function is called with a sample input string containing HTML tags (`world`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Cache-heavy approach**: The script preparation code creates a cached `div` element and a text node, which are reused across multiple executions. This approach potentially reduces the overhead of creating new elements.
2. **No-cache approach**: No cached elements are created, and each execution starts from scratch.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Cache-heavy approach**:
	* Pros: Reduced overhead of creating new elements, potentially faster execution times.
	* Cons: Increased memory usage due to the cache, which might not be desirable in a low-memory environment.
2. **No-cache approach**:
	* Pros: Lowers memory usage, but may introduce additional overhead from creating new elements.
	* Cons: Potentially slower execution times due to the increased number of element creations.

**Test Case 2: replaceAllWithShortcut**

This test case measures the execution time of the `replaceAllWithShortcut` function, which replaces special characters (`&`, `<`, `>`, `""`) with their HTML-encoded equivalents.

The script preparation code defines a shortcut function that replaces these characters. The input string contains HTML tags (`world`).

**Options Compared**

One option is compared:

1. **Direct approach**: The `replaceAllWithShortcut` function uses the built-in `String.prototype.replaceAll()` method to replace special characters.
2. **Shortcut approach**: A custom shortcut function is defined to replace these characters more efficiently.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Direct approach**:
	* Pros: Uses a well-established method, potentially accurate results.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional overhead of regular expressions or string manipulation.
2. **Shortcut approach**:
	* Pros: More efficient than the direct approach, potentially faster execution times.
	* Cons: Requires custom code and may not be as accurate as the direct approach.

**Library Usage**

Neither test case uses a specific JavaScript library.

**Special JavaScript Features**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features like async/await or Promises. The `replaceAllWithShortcut` function does use the `String.prototype.replaceAll()` method, but this is a built-in method rather than a custom feature.

**Other Considerations**

When running benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Memory usage: How much memory will the benchmark consume?
* Platform and browser support: Will the benchmark work on different platforms and browsers?
* Edge cases: Are there any edge cases that might affect the benchmark results?

By considering these factors and choosing the right approach for each test case, developers can create accurate and reliable benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

html encode 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: replaceAllWithShortcut vs serializeTextNode

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

replaceAllWithShortcut

serializeTextNode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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