Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test occurences
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
test occurences one vs test occurences two
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
test occurences one
var theString = "This is a string."; function test1() { var ocurr1 = theString.split("is").length - 1; } for (var i = 0; i < 999; i++) { test1() }
test occurences two
var theString = "This is a string."; function test2() { var ocurr2 = (theString.match(/is/g) || []).length; } for (var i = 0; i < 999; i++) { test2() }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
test occurences one
test occurences two
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):
I'll explain what's tested in the provided JSON benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript script that creates a string variable `theString` and an empty function `test1()` or `test2()`. The purpose of these functions is to count the occurrences of the word "is" in the string `theString`. There are two approaches: 1. **Manual Counting**: In the first approach, `test1()`, the length of the result of `theString.split("is")` minus 1 is calculated manually. 2. **Regular Expression Matching**: In the second approach, `test2()`, a regular expression (`/is/g`) is used to match all occurrences of "is" in the string `theString`. The `length` property of the resulting array is then used to count the occurrences. **Comparison** The comparison between these two approaches is between manual counting and using regular expressions for string matching. Both methods aim to achieve the same result, but they have different performance characteristics: * **Manual Counting**: This approach has a fixed overhead due to the `split()` method, which creates an array of substrings and then manually calculates the length minus 1. This can lead to slower performance compared to using regular expressions. * **Regular Expression Matching**: This approach uses the power of regular expressions to efficiently match all occurrences of "is" in the string. Regular expressions are optimized for speed and can be more efficient than manual counting, especially for large strings. **Pros and Cons** Pros: * Regular expression matching is often faster and more scalable than manual counting. * Regular expressions provide a way to handle complex pattern matching and validation. Cons: * Regular expressions can be less intuitive to use and understand, especially for beginners. * Overusing regular expressions can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of parsing and executing them. **Other Considerations** * **String Splitting**: The `split()` method has a cost because it creates an array of substrings. This can impact performance if not optimized correctly. * **Looping**: The use of a `for` loop in both benchmarks means that each execution will iterate over the entire string, leading to higher overhead. **Library Used** In this benchmark, there is no explicit library used. However, regular expressions are a built-in JavaScript feature, which is part of the ECMAScript standard. **Special JS Features or Syntax** This benchmark uses basic JavaScript syntax and features, such as: * String interpolation (`"theString = "...;`) * Function definitions (`function test1() { ... }`) * Loops (`for (var i = 0; i < 999; i++) { ... }`) These features are widely supported across most modern browsers and JavaScript engines. **Alternative Approaches** Other approaches to counting string occurrences could include: * Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which provide optimized string manipulation functions. * Utilizing a streaming approach, where the string is iterated over in chunks rather than loading the entire string into memory at once. * Leveraging built-in JavaScript methods like `indexOf()` and `length` to count occurrences. However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or scalable as using regular expressions for pattern matching.
Related benchmarks:
Math.abs vs .includes
exception flow control vs. if-else
!= vs >= war
!== vs != vs >= war
Bad await use
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?