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 J = 0;
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 J = 0;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[J++])
generate_guid(repo[J++])

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	1905698.5 Ops/sec
empty string	1895241.8 Ops/sec
random out of 1000	1172448.2 Ops/sec

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

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript functions involved in generating GUIDs (Globally Unique Identifiers) from strings. A GUID is a 128-bit number used as a unique identifier for objects.

Options Compared

There are three test cases:

generate_guid(): This function generates a GUID without any input string.
generate_guid(''): This function generates a GUID using an empty string as the input.
generate_guid(repo[J++]): This function generates a GUID using a randomly generated string from the repo array.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

generate_guid():
- Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation.
- Cons: No input string means no meaningful result, making it difficult to compare with other test cases.
generate_guid(''):
- Pros: Returns a valid GUID, allowing for comparison with other test cases.
- Cons: Produces an empty string input, which might not be representative of real-world usage.
generate_guid(repo[J++]):
- Pros: Generates a random string from the repo array, providing a realistic scenario.
- Cons: May produce identical results for repeated executions, affecting accuracy.

Library and its Purpose

The str32() function uses a library-like approach to generate a random string. Specifically, it:

function str32() {
  return Math.random().toFixed(16).slice(2);
}

This implementation generates a random 16-digit hexadecimal string using Math.random().

Other Special Features or Syntax

There are no notable special features or syntax used in this benchmark.

Alternative Approaches

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches, some possibilities could include:

Using a more efficient GUID generation algorithm.
Implementing the GUID generation using a different data structure (e.g., UUID).
Comparing performance with other programming languages or libraries.
Using a larger input string or array for the repo array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant modifications to the benchmark and might affect its accuracy and relevance.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

**Options Compared**

There are three test cases:

1. **`generate_guid()`**: This function generates a GUID without any input string.
2. **`generate_guid('')`**: This function generates a GUID using an empty string as the input.
3. **`generate_guid(repo[J++])`**: This function generates a GUID using a randomly generated string from the `repo` array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`generate_guid()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation.
	* Cons: No input string means no meaningful result, making it difficult to compare with other test cases.
2. **`generate_guid('')`**:
	* Pros: Returns a valid GUID, allowing for comparison with other test cases.
	* Cons: Produces an empty string input, which might not be representative of real-world usage.
3. **`generate_guid(repo[J++])`**:
	* Pros: Generates a random string from the `repo` array, providing a realistic scenario.
	* Cons: May produce identical results for repeated executions, affecting accuracy.

**Library and its Purpose**

The `str32()` function uses a library-like approach to generate a random string. Specifically, it:

```javascript
function str32() {
  return Math.random().toFixed(16).slice(2);
}
```

This implementation generates a random 16-digit hexadecimal string using `Math.random()`.

**Other Special Features or Syntax**

There are no notable special features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you wanted to compare alternative approaches, some possibilities could include:

1. Using a more efficient GUID generation algorithm.
2. Implementing the GUID generation using a different data structure (e.g., UUID).
3. Comparing performance with other programming languages or libraries.
4. Using a larger input string or array for the `repo` array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant modifications to the benchmark and might affect its accuracy and relevance.

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):