Benchmark: Check my anagram implementations

Script Preparation code:

function isAnagram (word1, word2) {
    if(typeof word1 !== 'string' || typeof word2 !== 'string') {
        return;
    }

    if(word1.length !== word2.length) {
        return false;
    }

    if(sanitizeString(word1) === sanitizeString(word2)) {
        return true;
    }

    return false;
}

function sanitizeString(text) {
    return text.toLowerCase().replace(/\s/g, '').split("").sort().join();
}

Tests:

Check length
isAnagram("one", "onee")
Check with different cases
isAnagram("soLiN", "lions")
Check single letter
isAnagram("a", "a")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Check length
Check with different cases
Check single letter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.125 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Check length	8965679.0 Ops/sec
Check with different cases	355424.2 Ops/sec
Check single letter	778437.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes a JavaScript function `isAnagram` with two input parameters `word1` and `word2`. The function returns `true` if the input strings are anagrams of each other (i.e., they contain the same characters, regardless of order) and `false` otherwise.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines the `isAnagram` function:
```javascript
function isAnagram(word1, word2) {
    // ...
}
```
This function takes two strings as input, sanitizes them by converting to lowercase, removing whitespace, sorting the characters, and then comparing the resulting strings.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that this benchmark does not involve any external HTML rendering or parsing.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. `Check length`: Tests if the function returns `true` for anagrams with different lengths.
2. `Check with different cases`: Tests if the function returns `true` for anagrams with different case combinations (e.g., "one" vs. "OneE").
3. `Check single letter`: Tests if the function returns `false` for non-anagram pairs with a single character.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares three approaches:

1. **Sanitization and sorting**: The `isAnagram` function uses sanitization (converting to lowercase, removing whitespace) and sorting to compare the input strings.
2. **Case-insensitive comparison**: The test cases include pairs with different case combinations (e.g., "one" vs. "OneE") to test if the function is case-sensitive or not.
3. **Short-length anagrams**: The test case `Check length` includes pairs of short strings (e.g., "a", "b") to test if the function can handle shorter input strings.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Sanitization and sorting**: This approach has pros in terms of efficiency, as it only relies on string operations. However, it may not be suitable for very large inputs or cases where sorting is expensive (e.g., due to performance limitations).
2. **Case-insensitive comparison**: This approach can have cons if the function needs to handle case-sensitive comparisons, but it's a good test for general robustness and handling of edge cases.
3. **Short-length anagrams**: Testing short-length anagrams helps ensure the function handles small inputs correctly.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to testing anagram functionality could include:

1. Using a hashing library (e.g., `crypto`) to compare input strings based on their hash values.
2. Implementing a more complex sorting algorithm (e.g., radix sort) for faster comparison.
3. Using a machine learning-based approach to identify anagrams.

However, the provided benchmark definition and test cases seem to focus on testing the sanity of the `isAnagram` function with simple input cases, making it suitable for this particular use case.

Related benchmarks:

Check my anagram implementations (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Check length vs Check with different cases vs Check single letter

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Check length

Check with different cases

Check single letter

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):