Benchmark: hamming distance again

Script Preparation code:

function hammingDistance(stringA, stringB) {
    if (stringA.length === stringB.length) {
        let count = 0
        for (char in stringA){
            if (stringA[char] !== stringB[char]) count++
        }
        return count
    } else {
        return 'strings are not the same length'
    }
}

function hammingDistanceForLoop(stringA, stringB) {
    let result = 0

    if (stringA.length == stringB.length) {

        for (let i = 0; i < stringA.length; i++) {
            if (stringA[i].toLowerCase() != stringB[i].toLowerCase()) {
                result++
            }
        }
        return result
    } else {
        throw new Error('Strings do not have equal length')
    }
}

Tests:

For In
hammingDistance('riverotter', 'roderofter')
For Loop
hammingDistanceForLoop('riverotter', 'roderofter')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For In
For Loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two JavaScript functions: `hammingDistance` and `hammingDistanceForLoop`. Both functions calculate the Hamming distance between two input strings, which is the number of positions at which the corresponding characters are different.

** hammingDistance function**

This function takes two string inputs, `stringA` and `stringB`, and returns their Hamming distance. The implementation uses a simple iterative approach:

1. It checks if the lengths of the two input strings are equal. If they are not, it immediately returns an error message.
2. If the lengths are equal, it initializes a counter variable `count` to 0.
3. It then iterates over each character in the first string using a for...in loop.
4. For each character, it checks if the corresponding character in the second string is different (case-insensitive). If it is, it increments the `count` variable.
5. Finally, it returns the calculated Hamming distance.

** hammingDistanceForLoop function**

This function also calculates the Hamming distance between two input strings but uses a for...loop instead of a for...in loop:

1. It initializes a result variable to 0.
2. It checks if the lengths of the two input strings are equal. If they are not, it throws an error with a message indicating that the strings have different lengths.
3. If the lengths are equal, it iterates over each character in the first string using a traditional for loop (with `let i = 0`).
4. For each character, it checks if the corresponding character in the second string is different (case-insensitive). If it is, it increments the result variable.
5. Finally, it returns the calculated Hamming distance.

**Options Compared**

The two functions are compared in terms of their performance:

* `hammingDistanceForLoop` uses a traditional for loop to iterate over the characters, whereas `hammingDistance` uses a for...in loop.
* Both functions have similar logic but differ in the iteration syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* `hammingDistance` (for...in loop):
	+ Pros: More concise code, potentially faster due to shorter overhead.
	+ Cons: May have slower performance due to the for...in loop's inherent complexity.
* `hammingDistanceForLoop` (traditional for loop):
	+ Pros: Generally faster and more predictable performance, as it avoids the potential overhead of the for...in loop.
	+ Cons: Less concise code, may be less readable.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in these benchmark definitions. However, note that the `toLowerCase()` method is used to perform case-insensitive comparisons, which might be a part of the browser's built-in string handling functionality or a standard JavaScript feature.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern browsers. No ES6+ features like `async/await`, `const`, or template literals are used.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to improve the benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Use a more efficient algorithm**: Consider using a more optimized approach for calculating Hamming distance, such as leveraging bitwise operations or using a lookup table.
2. **Minimize string comparisons**: If possible, consider optimizing the code to minimize the number of character comparisons required.
3. **Profile-guided optimization**: Use profiling tools to identify performance bottlenecks and optimize those specific areas.

Keep in mind that these are just suggestions for potential improvements. The provided benchmark is already well-structured and easy to understand.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For In	112314.3 Ops/sec
For Loop	2429407.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

hamming distance again (version: 0)

test of hamming distance JS implementation

Comparing performance of: For In vs For Loop

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For In

For Loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):