Benchmark: exec vs split - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

split
function parse(str){ str.split('\n').map(item => item.split(' ')); } function getStack() { try { throw new Error(); } catch(e) { return e.stack; } } function Hello() { parse(getStack()); } function foo(params) { params() } const boo=()=>{Hello()} foo(boo)
exec
function parse(str){ var regex = /^\s*at (?:((?:\[object object\])?[^\\/]+(?: \[as \S+\])?) )?$?(.*?):(\d+)(?::(\d+))?$?\s*$/i; regex.exec(str); } function getStack() { try { throw new Error(); } catch(e) { return e.stack; } } function Hello() { parse(getStack()); } function foo(params) { params() } const boo=()=>{Hello()} foo(boo)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split
exec

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split	81885.9 Ops/sec
exec	97155.9 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to executing JavaScript code: `exec` and `split`. The benchmark defines a script that contains three functions: `parse`, `getStack`, and `Hello`. The `Hello` function calls `parse` with the result of `getStack()` as an argument.

**Options Being Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Exec**: This approach uses the `exec()` method to execute a string containing JavaScript code.
2. **Split**: This approach splits the string into individual lines using `\n`, and then executes each line separately using `map()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Exec:**

Pros:

* Can be more concise and expressive, as it allows for arbitrary JavaScript code to be executed in a single step.
* May be faster, as it avoids the overhead of parsing individual lines.

Cons:

* Can lead to security vulnerabilities if the input string is not properly sanitized or validated.
* May not work correctly with complex or non-standard JavaScript syntax.

**Split:**

Pros:

* Provides better control over the execution process, allowing for explicit line-by-line processing and potential optimizations.
* Avoids security risks associated with executing arbitrary code.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of parsing individual lines.
* May require more boilerplate code to manage the execution process.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

The benchmark uses the `map()` function, which is a built-in JavaScript method. No external libraries are required.

There are no special JavaScript features being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When using these approaches, consider the following:

* For `exec`, ensure that the input string is properly sanitized and validated to prevent security vulnerabilities.
* For `split`, be mindful of potential performance bottlenecks due to the overhead of parsing individual lines.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarking tools or approaches, consider the following options:

1. **V8 Benchmark Suite**: This is a collection of benchmarks designed to measure the performance of JavaScript engines like V8 (used in Chrome).
2. **JSPerf**: A popular online tool for comparing JavaScript engine performance.
3. **Benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like `benchmark.js` or `micro-benchmark` can help you create and run your own custom benchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool or approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and testing goals.

Related benchmarks:

exec vs split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split vs exec

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split

exec

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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