Benchmark: bracket balance algorithm

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.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks like this is an fascinating task.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines three different algorithms for checking if a string `s` is balanced, which means that it consists only of valid bracket pairs: `()`, `{}`, and `[]`. The input string `test` contains a long sequence of nested brackets. The algorithm's goal is to remove the invalid brackets from the string and check if the resulting string can be formed by matching each pair of opening and closing brackets.

**Benchmark Options Compared**

There are three algorithms being compared:

1. **replace**: This algorithm replaces all invalid brackets (opening or closing) with an empty string, effectively removing them from the input string.
2. **split - join**: This algorithm splits the input string into substrings using a regular expression that matches either `[`, `]`, `{`, `}`, or `(` and then joins these substrings back together without any separators.
3. **slice and concat**: This algorithm uses a similar approach to `split - join` but replaces each pair of adjacent opening and closing brackets in the resulting string with an empty string, effectively removing them.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1.  **replace**:
    *   Pros: Simple and efficient.
    *   Cons: May lead to slower performance if the input string is very large or contains many invalid brackets.
2.  **split - join**: 
    *   Pros: More flexible than `replace` and can handle more complex bracket patterns.
    *   Cons: Can be slower than `replace` due to the overhead of regular expressions and string manipulation.
3.  **slice and concat**:
    *   Pros: Similar performance to `replace`, but with the added flexibility of being able to remove any adjacent pairs of brackets, not just opening ones.
    *   Cons: More complex codebase compared to `replace` and may require more resources for execution.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in these benchmarks. The regular expressions used are built-in JavaScript features (`/[^\$\$\\{\\}\\[\\]]/g` and `/\\[\\]|\\{\\}|\$\$/g`). No external libraries or frameworks are required to run the benchmarks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in these benchmarks. They only utilize built-in features like regular expressions, string manipulation methods (e.g., `split`, `join`, `concat`), and array methods (e.g., `includes`) that are part of the standard language.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to solve this problem could include:

*   Using a stack data structure to keep track of opening brackets and matching them with closing ones.
*   Applying a more sophisticated parsing algorithm, such as a recursive descent parser or an HTML parser, to handle bracket balancing.
*   Employing machine learning techniques, like training a neural network on a dataset of balanced and unbalanced input strings, to predict whether a given string is balanced.

However, these alternative approaches may require significant additional resources and expertise, making the `replace`, `split - join`, and `slice and concat` methods suitable for a simple benchmarking comparison.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.14.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
split - join	56351.1 Ops/sec
replace	75195.3 Ops/sec
slice and concat	62843.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

bracket balance algorithm (version: 0)

compare different solutions of a bracket balancing algorithm.

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

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

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):