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);

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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 2 months ago):

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 2 months ago):