Benchmark: bracket balance - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

split join
isBalanced1 = (s, o, v, rx1, rx2) => { rx1 = /[^\{\}\[\]]/g; rx2 = /\[\]|\{\}|/g; v = ['()', '{}', '[]', '']; o = s.replace(rx1, ''); for (let i = 0; i < o.length; i += 0.5) { o = o.split(rx2).join``; } return v.includes(o); }; const test = '[[[{{{((()))}}}]]]'; console.log(isBalanced1(test));
replace
isBalanced2 = (s, o, v, rx1, rx2) => { rx1 = /[^\{\}\[\]]/g; rx2 = /\[\]|\{\}|/g; v = ['()', '{}', '[]', '']; o = s.replace(rx1, ''); for (let i = 0; i < o.length; i += 0.5) { o = o.replace(rx2, ''); } return v.includes(o); }; const test = '[[[{{{((()))}}}]]]'; console.log(isBalanced2(test));
slice and concat
isBalanced3 = (s, o, v, rx1, rx2) => { rx1 = /[^\{\}\[\]]/g; rx2 = /\[\]|\{\}|/g; v = ['()', '{}', '[]', '']; o = s.replace(rx1, ''); for (let i = 0; i < o.length; i++) { if (v.includes(`${o[i]}${o[i + 1]}`)) { o = o.slice(0, i).concat(o.slice(i + 2, o.length)); i -= 2; } } return v.includes(o); }; const test = '[[[{{{((()))}}}]]]'; console.log(isBalanced3(test));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split join
replace
slice and concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare different iterations of a bracket balancing algorithm. The algorithm takes an input string `s` and checks if it's balanced using a set of predefined rules (`v`). The rules are:

- `()` : parentheses
- `{}` : curly brackets
- `[]` : square brackets

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to balance the bracketed strings:

1. **Replace**: This approach replaces all occurrences of invalid bracket characters with an empty string, and then checks if the resulting string is in the set of valid bracket patterns (`v`). This approach modifies the input string.
2. **Split and Join**: This approach splits the modified input string into substrings separated by each type of bracket (e.g., `()`, `{}`, `[]`), and then joins them back together to form a new string. Finally, it checks if this new string is in the set of valid bracket patterns.
3. **Slice and Concat**: This approach iterates through the modified input string, removing pairs of adjacent brackets that don't match any valid pattern. If such a pair is found, it's removed from the string. After processing the entire string, it checks if the resulting string is in the set of valid bracket patterns.

**Pros and Cons:**

- **Replace**: This approach can be efficient for small inputs but may cause issues with large inputs due to the repeated replacement operations.
- **Split and Join**: This approach ensures that all brackets are handled correctly by splitting them into individual characters, which might result in slightly slower performance compared to replacing or slicing. However, it provides a clear separation of concerns between string modification and bracket pattern matching.
- **Slice and Concat**: This approach is likely the most efficient since it only requires iterating through the string once and doesn't involve any string replacement operations.

**Library:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it seems that JavaScript's built-in regular expression and string manipulation functions (`/g`, `replace()`, `split()`, `join()`) are being used to implement these algorithms.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split join	73754.9 Ops/sec
replace	105838.1 Ops/sec
slice and concat	92704.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

bracket balance (version: 0)

compare different iterations of a bracket balancing algorithm.

Comparing performance of: split join vs replace vs slice and concat

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split join

replace

slice and concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):