Benchmark: test anagramm - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function sortThings(a, b) {
if (a > b) {
       return 1
   } else if (a < b) {
       return -1
   } else {
       return 0
   }
}

function isAnagram(a, b, strict = false) {
  return a.length === b.length ? strict ? isStrictAnagram(a, b) : isStrictAnagram(a.toLowerCase(), b.toLowerCase()) : false
}

function isStrictAnagram(a, b) {
  return JSON.stringify(a.split('').sort(sortThings)) === JSON.stringify(b.split('').sort(sortThings))
}

const goPex = (stringOne, stringTwo) => {
  const charMap1 = new Map();
  const charMap2 = new Map();

  if (stringOne.length !== stringTwo.length) return false;
  for (let i = 0; i < stringOne.length; i++) {
    charMap1.set(stringOne[i], (charMap1.get(stringOne[i]) || 0) + 1);
    charMap2.set(stringTwo[i], (charMap2.get(stringTwo[i]) || 0) + 1);
  }

  for ([key, value] of charMap1) {
    if (value !== charMap2.get(key)) return false;
  }
  return true;
};

const ana = (one, two) => {
  const r = (str) => str.split('').reduce((acc, item) => {
    if (acc.hasOwnProperty(item)) {
      acc[item]++
    } else {
      acc[item] = 1
    }
    return acc
  }, {})
  const target = {}
  Object.keys(r(one)).sort().map(item => target[item] = r(one)[item])
  const comparator = {}
  Object.keys(r(two)).sort().map(item => comparator[item] = r(two)[item])
  return JSON.stringify(target) === JSON.stringify(comparator)
}

Tests:

test1
function test1() { console.log(isAnagram('abc', 'bca')) console.log(isAnagram('foo', 'ofoo')) console.log(isAnagram('ooffoo', 'ffooff')) console.log(isAnagram('', '')) console.log(isAnagram('', 'bca')) console.log(isAnagram('', 'bca')) }
test2
function test2() { console.log(ana('abc', 'bca')) console.log(ana('foo', 'ofoo')) console.log(ana('ooffoo', 'ffooff')) console.log(ana('', '')) console.log(ana('', 'bca')) console.log(ana('', 'bca')) }
test3
function test3() { console.log(goPex('abc', 'bca')) console.log(goPex('foo', 'ofoo')) console.log(goPex('ooffoo', 'ffooff')) console.log(goPex('', '')) console.log(goPex('', 'bca')) console.log(goPex('', 'bca')) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2
test3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an in-depth explanation of the benchmark, its options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case. The goal is to measure the performance of three different approaches for determining whether two strings are anagrams: `isAnagram`, `ana`, and `goPex`. An anagram is a word or phrase formed by rearranging the letters of another word or phrase, typically using all the original letters exactly once.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides the code for each test case:

1. `test1`: This test case uses the `isAnagram` function, which takes two strings as input and returns a boolean indicating whether they are anagrams.
2. `test2`: This test case uses the `ana` function, which also takes two strings as input and returns a boolean indicating whether they are anagrams. The `ana` function appears to be a more complex implementation that calculates a mapping of characters between the two strings using a reduce operation.
3. `test3`: This test case uses the `goPex` function, which is similar to `isAnagram` but uses a different approach to compare the strings.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three options:

1. `isAnagram`: A simple implementation that uses the `.split()` and `.sort()` methods to compare the characters in the two strings.
2. `ana`: A more complex implementation that calculates a mapping of characters between the two strings using a reduce operation.
3. `goPex`: Another implementation that compares the strings by iterating over each character map and checking if the counts are equal.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each option:

1. `isAnagram`:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and efficient.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for large strings or specific use cases.
2. `ana`:
	* Pros: More complex implementation that can handle edge cases and larger inputs.
	* Cons: Slower due to the use of reduce operations, which can lead to higher memory usage.
3. `goPex`:
	* Pros: Similar performance to `isAnagram`, with a more straightforward approach.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient as `ana` for very large inputs.

**Other Considerations**

1. **String Processing**: The benchmarking test case involves processing strings, which can lead to issues like Unicode normalization, character encoding, and string length calculations.
2. **Algorithmic Complexity**: The complexity of the algorithms used in each implementation affects their performance. In this case, `ana` has a higher time complexity than `isAnagram`, making it slower for large inputs.
3. **Memory Usage**: The benchmarking test case can impact memory usage, especially when using complex data structures like maps.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare the anagram detection capabilities of different JavaScript libraries or frameworks, here are some alternatives:

1. `lodash` (with its `isEqual` function): This library provides a more comprehensive set of functions for comparing objects and arrays.
2. `Array.prototype.every()`: This method can be used to check if every element in an array satisfies a condition, making it suitable for anagram detection.
3. `JavaScript ES6+ features**: The benchmark could also explore the use of JavaScript ES6+ features like `Set` or `Map` to optimize anagram detection.

In conclusion, the provided benchmarking test case allows us to compare the performance and complexity of three different approaches for determining whether two strings are anagrams. By understanding the pros and cons of each option, we can choose the most suitable implementation for our specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.142 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	64582840.0 Ops/sec
test2	64120236.0 Ops/sec
test3	64431928.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test anagramm (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2 vs test3

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

test3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):