Question

If I want to parse a text field in SSJS there are 2 main tools. The built in JavaScript code and the newly converted @Functions. Are the @Functions slower then using pure javascript? Or is there no real difference?

viewScope.put("length", tmpStr.length)

vs.

viewScope.put("length:, @Length(tmpStr))

Answer 1

For me it seems that the @Formula is not as fast as using SSJS-code.

You can easily test by yourself with some code like this one (reload page multiple times to get serious results):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xp:view xmlns:xp="http://www.ibm.com/xsp/core">
    <xp:label id="label1">
        <xp:this.value>
            <![CDATA[#{javascript:
            var start = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
            var testString = "0123456789";
            var dummy;
            for(  var i=0;  i<100000; i++ ){
            dummy = @Length( testString )
            }
            var stop = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
            stop - start + " ms"}]]>
        </xp:this.value>
    </xp:label>
    <xp:br></xp:br>
    <xp:br></xp:br>
    <xp:label id="label2">
        <xp:this.value>
            <![CDATA[#{javascript:
            var start = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
            var testString = "0123456789";
            var dummy;
            for( var i=0;  i<100000; i++ ){
            dummy = testString.length;
            }
            var stop = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
            stop - start + " ms"}]]>
        </xp:this.value>
    </xp:label>
</xp:view>