Benchmark: comparator vs startsWith

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

let testNum = (Math.random() * 1000) - 500;
let testStr = `${(testNum < 0) ? "(" : ""}${testNum}${(testNum < 0) ? ")" : ""}`;

Tests:

Number Comparator
testNum < 0
String startsWith
testStr.startsWith("(")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Number Comparator
String startsWith

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/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Number Comparator

173.0M/s

String startsWith

172.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Number Comparator	173,016,480 Ops/sec
String startsWith	172,016,464 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

In the provided benchmark, two different approaches are compared: a number comparison using a traditional numeric comparator (`testNum < 0`) and checking if a string starts with a specific character using the `startsWith` method (`testStr.startsWith("(")`). Let's break down each of these two tests, their implementations, and the pros and cons associated with each.

### Test Cases

1. **Number Comparator (`testNum < 0`)**
   - **Description:** This benchmark tests the performance of a simple numeric comparison. It checks if the randomly generated number (`testNum`) is less than zero.
   - **Performance Metric:** Executions per second indicates how many times this comparison can be performed in one second.
   - **Pros:**
     - Simple and fast: Numeric comparisons are typically very efficient since they are handled directly by the CPU.
     - Low overhead: The operation does not involve any complex data structures or methods; it’s just a straightforward comparison.
   - **Cons:**
     - Limited use case: While very fast, it only serves for comparisons and lacks versatility as it can only determine the relationship between two numbers.

2. **String startsWith (`testStr.startsWith("(")`)**
   - **Description:** This benchmark tests the performance of the `startsWith` method on a string. It checks whether the generated string (`testStr`) starts with the character `"("`.
   - **Performance Metric:** As with the number comparator, this is measured in executions per second.
   - **Pros:**
     - Versatile: The `startsWith` method is part of the JavaScript String prototype, making it applicable for various text manipulation scenarios.
     - Readable: The method is expressive, clearly indicating the intention of checking for a prefix.
   - **Cons:**
     - Slower than numeric comparisons: String manipulation generally incurs higher overhead due to character encoding and the more complex nature of string data.
     - Depending on the string's length and the implementation of the method in the JavaScript engine, performance may vary significantly.

### Benchmark Results
- The results indicate that both tests are executed in high frequency with:
  - The `Number Comparator` (173,016,480 executions per second) being slightly faster than the `String startsWith` test (172,016,464 executions per second). 
- This supports the expectation that numeric comparisons outperform string manipulations in a raw performance context.

### Other Considerations and Alternatives
- **Native vs. Library Functions:** Both tested approaches utilize native JavaScript features that are highly optimized within the JavaScript engine. There are no external libraries in this benchmark, which helps keep it straightforward.
  
- **Alternatives:** 
  - For the number comparison, alternative methods such as using other relational operators or functions (like Math.sign) could be tested, but they would not likely yield significant performance improvements.
  - For string checking, alternatives like regex comparisons or using the `slice` method to check the first character could offer more flexibility but might come at a cost of performance.

Overall, the benchmark effectively demonstrates the performance difference between two fundamental types of operations in JavaScript. The findings can guide software engineers in selecting the appropriate method based on requirements for speed and operational complexity in their applications.

comparator vs startsWith (version: 1)

comparator vs startsWith

Comparing performance of: `Number Comparator vs String startsWith`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Number Comparator

String startsWith

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

comparator vs startsWith (version: 1)

comparator vs startsWith

Comparing performance of: Number Comparator vs String startsWith

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Number Comparator

String startsWith

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Number Comparator vs String startsWith`