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(256).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(256).fill(0).map(str32);

Tests:

undefined
generate_guid()
generate_guid()
empty string
generate_guid('')
generate_guid('')
random out of 1000
generate_guid(repo[J++ & 255])
generate_guid(repo[J++ & 255])

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; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 52 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
undefined	1882734.2 Ops/sec
empty string	2069687.6 Ops/sec
random out of 1000	1411220.4 Ops/sec

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

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript functions related to string-based GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) generation. The script preparation code defines two functions:

generate_guid(s): This function takes a string s as input and generates a GUID based on it.
randomString(): This function generates a random 16-digit hexadecimal string using Math.random().toFixed(16).slice(2).
str32(): This function combines two consecutive calls to randomString() and returns the result.

The benchmark uses these functions in different test cases:

An undefined input for generate_guid()
An empty string as input for generate_guid()
A random string generated using randomString() as input for generate_guid() with a modulo operation to limit the output to 1000 possible values.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

Using an empty string ('') as input for generate_guid()
Passing no input at all (undefined) to generate_guid()
Generating a random string using randomString() and passing it as input with a modulo operation to limit the output

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Using an empty string ('') as input for generate_guid():
- Pros: This approach can potentially be faster since it doesn't require generating a random string.
- Cons: It might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where GUIDs are generated from non-empty strings.
Passing no input at all (undefined) to generate_guid():
- Pros: This approach is simple and straightforward, but it's likely to be slower due to the overhead of calling generate_guid() with an undefined argument.
- Cons: It might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where GUIDs are generated from non-empty strings or other inputs.
Generating a random string using randomString() and passing it as input with a modulo operation:
- Pros: This approach can potentially be faster since it uses pre-generated randomness, which is usually more efficient than generating new random numbers.
- Cons: The use of a fixed-size output (1000 possible values) might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where GUIDs have varying lengths.

Other Considerations

The benchmark assumes that the input string s is non-empty, as per the provided script preparation code. This assumption might limit the applicability of the results to real-world use cases.
The use of modulo operation (& 255) in the last test case introduces a new layer of complexity and might affect performance depending on the specific hardware and software configurations being tested.

Library Usage

The benchmark uses the Math object, which is part of the JavaScript standard library. No external libraries are required or mentioned in the provided code.

Special JS Features/Syntax

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard (ES5-compliant).

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript functions related to string-based GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) generation. The script preparation code defines two functions:

1. `generate_guid(s)`: This function takes a string `s` as input and generates a GUID based on it.
2. `randomString()`: This function generates a random 16-digit hexadecimal string using `Math.random().toFixed(16).slice(2)`.
3. `str32()`: This function combines two consecutive calls to `randomString()` and returns the result.

The benchmark uses these functions in different test cases:

*   An undefined input for `generate_guid()`
*   An empty string as input for `generate_guid()`
*   A random string generated using `randomString()` as input for `generate_guid()` with a modulo operation to limit the output to 1000 possible values.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

1.  Using an empty string (`''`) as input for `generate_guid()`
2.  Passing no input at all (undefined) to `generate_guid()`
3.  Generating a random string using `randomString()` and passing it as input with a modulo operation to limit the output

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   Using an empty string (`''`) as input for `generate_guid()`:
    *   Pros: This approach can potentially be faster since it doesn't require generating a random string.
    *   Cons: It might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where GUIDs are generated from non-empty strings.
*   Passing no input at all (undefined) to `generate_guid()`:
    *   Pros: This approach is simple and straightforward, but it's likely to be slower due to the overhead of calling `generate_guid()` with an undefined argument.
    *   Cons: It might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where GUIDs are generated from non-empty strings or other inputs.
*   Generating a random string using `randomString()` and passing it as input with a modulo operation:
    *   Pros: This approach can potentially be faster since it uses pre-generated randomness, which is usually more efficient than generating new random numbers.
    *   Cons: The use of a fixed-size output (1000 possible values) might not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios where GUIDs have varying lengths.

**Other Considerations**

*   The benchmark assumes that the input string `s` is non-empty, as per the provided script preparation code. This assumption might limit the applicability of the results to real-world use cases.
*   The use of modulo operation (`& 255`) in the last test case introduces a new layer of complexity and might affect performance depending on the specific hardware and software configurations being tested.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `Math` object, which is part of the JavaScript standard library. No external libraries are required or mentioned in the provided code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard (ES5-compliant).

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):