Benchmark: String.split: Random vs Fixed strings

Script Preparation code:

function gen() {
	let ret = Math.floor(Math.random() * (2**64));
    return (ret > Math.pow(10, 19) ? ret : ret +  1 + Math.pow(10, 19)).toString();
}
const sameDigits = gen();

var generateDigits = (same) => { 
	const ret = gen();
    return same > 0 ? sameDigits : ret;
}

Tests:

Fixed
const sum = generateDigits(true).split('').reduce((prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0);
Random
const sum = generateDigits(false).split('').reduce((prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Fixed
Random

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for the `String.split()` method in JavaScript. Specifically, it tests two different approaches:

1. **Fixed strings**: This approach uses a fixed string with a random number generated using the `gen()` function. The goal is to measure the performance of `String.split()` when used with a fixed input.
2. **Random strings**: This approach uses a randomly generated string, also using the `gen()` function. The aim is to evaluate the performance of `String.split()` when dealing with variable-length inputs.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using a fixed string vs using a random string as input for `String.split()`.
2. The number of digits in the generated strings (fixed, 20, or variable).
3. The `reduce()` method is used to sum up the individual characters returned by `split()`, which can also affect performance.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Fixed strings**:
	* Pros: Typically faster since the input is smaller and more predictable.
	* Cons: May not accurately reflect real-world scenarios where inputs are variable-length or generated randomly.
2. **Random strings**:
	* Pros: More representative of real-world use cases, especially for applications that need to handle variable-length inputs.
	* Cons: Generally slower due to the larger input size and increased randomness.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no specific library is explicitly mentioned or used. However, it's likely that the `Math.random()` function, which generates random numbers, is being used implicitly in the `gen()` function.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on measuring the performance of `String.split()` with different input types (fixed vs random strings).

**Other alternatives**

To further optimize and compare the performance of `String.split()`, additional test cases could be created to:

* Use other string splitting methods, such as `String.prototype.split()` or custom implementations.
* Test with different character encodings or encoding schemes.
* Incorporate more realistic input scenarios, like generating strings from user inputs or database records.

Keep in mind that the specific options and alternatives will depend on the goals and objectives of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

String.split: Random vs Fixed strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Fixed vs Random

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Fixed

Random

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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