Benchmark: string based guid generation

Script Preparation code:

function generate_guid(s) {
    var i = 0,
        guid = '',
        n = s && s.length || 0;

    for (; i < 8; i++) {
        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';
    }

    guid += '-';

    for (i = 8; i < 12; i++) {
        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';
    }

    guid += '-';

    for (i = 12; i < 16; i++) {
        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';
    }

    guid += '-';

    for (i = 16; i < 20; i++) {
        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';
    }

    guid += '-';

    for (i = 20; i < 32; i++) {
        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';
    }

    return guid;
}

function randomString() {
    return Math.random().toFixed(16).slice(2);
}

function str32() {
    return randomString() + randomString();
}

var repo = new Array(1000).fill(0).map(str32);

​x
 
function generate_guid(s) {    var i = 0,        guid = '',        n = s && s.length || 0;​    for (; i < 8; i++) {        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';    }​    guid += '-';​    for (i = 8; i < 12; i++) {        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';    }​    guid += '-';​    for (i = 12; i < 16; i++) {        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';    }​    guid += '-';​    for (i = 16; i < 20; i++) {        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';    }​    guid += '-';​    for (i = 20; i < 32; i++) {        guid += (i < n) ? s[i] : '0';    }​    return guid;}​function randomString() {    return Math.random().toFixed(16).slice(2);}​function str32() {    return randomString() + randomString();}​var repo = new Array(1000).fill(0).map(str32);

Tests:

undefined
generate_guid()
generate_guid()
empty string
generate_guid('')
generate_guid('')
random out of 1000
generate_guid(repo[Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)])
generate_guid(repo[Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
undefined
empty string
random out of 1000

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/61.0.3163.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 61 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
undefined	1879010.6 Ops/sec
empty string	1913020.2 Ops/sec
random out of 1000	887829.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

What is being tested?

The benchmark tests three different approaches to generate GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) strings from input strings:

Generate GUID from an empty string: The generate_guid('') function is tested to see how long it takes to execute.
Generate GUID from a variable-length string: The generate_guid(repo[Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)]) function is tested with a random out-of-bounds index of the repo array (between 0 and 999). This tests the function's behavior when given an invalid or out-of-range input.
Generate GUID from a string: The generate_guid(s) function is tested with a fixed-length string (str32()) repeated twice to simulate a variable-length input.

Options compared:

The benchmark compares the execution time of these three approaches:

Empty string: Input is an empty string ('')
Variable out-of-bounds index: Input is a random element from the repo array (between 0 and 999)
Variable length string: Input is a randomly generated string using randomString() repeated twice

Pros and Cons of each approach:

Empty string:
- Pros: Simplistic input, easy to test
- Cons: May not reflect real-world scenarios where input strings are often non-empty or variable-length
Variable out-of-bounds index:
- Pros: Tests error handling and edge cases
- Cons: Input is randomly generated, which may not be representative of typical use cases
Variable length string:
- Pros: Simulates real-world scenarios where input strings are often variable-length
- Cons: Requires additional setup to generate random strings

Library used:

The randomString() function uses the Math.random() method, which generates a pseudo-random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). This is a basic implementation of randomness.

Special JavaScript features or syntax:

None are mentioned in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript features like functions, arrays, loops, and string concatenation.

Other alternatives:

If you want to test GUID generation with more realistic inputs, you could use:

Real-world strings (e.g., URLs, emails, names)
UUID libraries or implementations
More sophisticated randomization techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional setup and testing to ensure accurate results.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests three different approaches to generate GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) strings from input strings:

1. **Generate GUID from an empty string**: The `generate_guid('')` function is tested to see how long it takes to execute.
2. **Generate GUID from a variable-length string**: The `generate_guid(repo[Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000)])` function is tested with a random out-of-bounds index of the `repo` array (between 0 and 999). This tests the function's behavior when given an invalid or out-of-range input.
3. **Generate GUID from a string**: The `generate_guid(s)` function is tested with a fixed-length string (`str32()`) repeated twice to simulate a variable-length input.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the execution time of these three approaches:

* **Empty string**: Input is an empty string (`''`)
* **Variable out-of-bounds index**: Input is a random element from the `repo` array (between 0 and 999)
* **Variable length string**: Input is a randomly generated string using `randomString()` repeated twice

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Empty string**:
	* Pros: Simplistic input, easy to test
	* Cons: May not reflect real-world scenarios where input strings are often non-empty or variable-length
2. **Variable out-of-bounds index**:
	* Pros: Tests error handling and edge cases
	* Cons: Input is randomly generated, which may not be representative of typical use cases
3. **Variable length string**:
	* Pros: Simulates real-world scenarios where input strings are often variable-length
	* Cons: Requires additional setup to generate random strings

**Library used:**

The `randomString()` function uses the `Math.random()` method, which generates a pseudo-random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). This is a basic implementation of randomness.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript features like functions, arrays, loops, and string concatenation.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test GUID generation with more realistic inputs, you could use:

* Real-world strings (e.g., URLs, emails, names)
* UUID libraries or implementations
* More sophisticated randomization techniques

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional setup and testing to ensure accurate results.

Related benchmarks:

string based guid generation (version: 0)

convert string to guid

Comparing performance of: undefined vs empty string vs random out of 1000

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

undefined

empty string

random out of 1000

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 7 months ago):