Benchmark: Unique ID - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

ID1
var id = '_' + Math.random().toString(36).substr(2, 9);
ID2
var id = '_' + Math.random().toString(36).slice(2);
ID3
var id = '_' + (new Date()).getTime();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ID1
ID2
ID3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test, where users can create and run benchmark tests to compare the performance of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple script that generates a unique identifier using either `Math.random().toString(36).substr(2, 9)` or `Math.random().toString(36).slice(2)` or `(new Date()).getTime()`. The purpose of this test is to measure the performance difference between these three approaches.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **`Math.random().toString(36).substr(2, 9)`**: This approach generates a random string using `Math.random()` and then takes a substring from the resulting string. The purpose of this approach is to generate a unique identifier with a fixed length.
2. **`Math.random().toString(36).slice(2)`**: Similar to the previous approach, but uses `slice()` instead of `substr()` to extract the desired part of the string.
3. **`(new Date()).getTime()`**: This approach generates a timestamp using the `Date` object and then extracts the millisecond value from it.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Math.random().toString(36).substr(2, 9)`**:
	+ Pros: Generates unique identifiers with fixed length, easy to implement.
	+ Cons: May lead to collisions (identifiers generated by different users), not suitable for large-scale applications.
* **`Math.random().toString(36).slice(2)`**:
	+ Pros: Similar to the previous approach, but avoids collisions and is more suitable for large-scale applications.
	+ Cons: Requires JavaScript version support for `slice()` method.
* **`(new Date()).getTime()`**:
	+ Pros: Generates unique timestamps with high resolution, suitable for tracking events.
	+ Cons: Limited range due to 32-bit integer overflow, not suitable for generating identifiers.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark. However, the use of `Math.random()` and `Date` object is a common JavaScript feature.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach for generating unique identifiers, consider factors such as:

* Collision rate: How likely is it that two or more users will generate the same identifier?
* Identifiability: Can the generated identifier be easily distinguished from other identifiers?
* Scalability: Will the chosen approach scale well with increasing user base?

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to generating unique identifiers, consider:

1. **UUIDs (Universally Unique Identifiers)**: Generate random UUIDs using libraries like `uuid-js` or `crypto`.
2. **Cryptographic hash functions**: Use libraries like `crypto` to generate hashed values that are unlikely to collide.
3. **Distributed timestamping**: Use a distributed system to generate timestamps with high resolution and low latency.

In conclusion, the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your application, such as collision rate, identifiability, and scalability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_5) AppleWebKit/603.2.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.1.1 Safari/603.2.4

Browser/OS: Safari 10 on Mac OS X 10.12.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ID1	1853092.9 Ops/sec
ID2	1787974.0 Ops/sec
ID3	3716565.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Unique ID (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ID1 vs ID2 vs ID3

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ID1

ID2

ID3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):