Benchmark: Join vs split - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var string = '10 Yard Dash (sec.)'

Tests:

Double split
let answer = string.split('(')[1].split(')')[0]
Split Replace
let answer = string.split('(')[1].replace(')', '')
Join
let third = [] for(let i = string.length-2; i > 0; --i) { if(string[i] === '('){ break; } third.unshift(string[i]) } third.join('')
For, reverse
let fourth = '' for(let i = string.length-2; i > 0; --i) { if(string[i] === '('){ break; } fourth+=string[i] } fourth.split('').reverse().join('')
Reverse
let third = [] for(let i = string.length-2; i > 0; --i) { if(string[i] === '('){ break; } third.push(string[i]) } third.reverse().join('')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Double split
Split Replace
Join
For, reverse
Reverse

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 break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a set of rules that govern how the test should be executed. In this case:

* The test compares different approaches to extract the value inside the parentheses from a given string.
* There are four individual test cases:
	1. "Double split"
	2. "Split Replace"
	3. "Join"
	4. "For, reverse"

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined by its Benchmark Definition, which contains a specific JavaScript code snippet that extracts the value inside the parentheses from the input string.

* **"Double split"**: Uses `split('(')[1].split(')')` to extract the value.
* **"Split Replace"**: Uses `split('(')[1].replace(')', '')` to extract the value.
* **"Join"**: Uses a custom approach where it iterates through the string from right to left, pushing characters onto an array until it finds the opening parenthesis. Then, it reverses the array and joins its elements to form the extracted value.
* **"For, reverse"**: Similar to "Join", but uses a `for` loop to iterate through the string and pushes characters onto an array. After finding the opening parenthesis, it reverses the array and joins its elements.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any libraries beyond what's included in the standard JavaScript environment.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no mention of special JS features or syntax that require specific browser support or versioning. All tests should be compatible with modern JavaScript environments.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **"Double split"**: Pros: simple, straightforward; Cons: may not handle edge cases (e.g., empty string).
* **"Split Replace"**: Pros: easy to understand, efficient; Cons: assumes a specific format for the input string.
* **"Join"**:
	+ Pros: handles all possible formats of the input string; Cons: more complex, slower due to reverse operation.
	+ "For, reverse":
		- Pros: similar efficiency as "Split Replace"; Cons: less intuitive than other approaches.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered:

* **Using `String.prototype.match()`**: Could simplify the extraction process, but may not handle all edge cases (e.g., parentheses nested within each other).
* **Using a regex**: Could provide a more concise and readable way to extract the value, but may require additional setup for handling specific formats.

However, given the simplicity of the input string format in this benchmark, the custom approaches used in "Join" and "For, reverse" seem suitable for comparison.

Related benchmarks:

Join vs split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Double split vs Split Replace vs Join vs For, reverse vs Reverse

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Double split

Split Replace

Join

For, reverse

Reverse

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):