Benchmark: Palindrome checker

Script Preparation code:

function checkPalindrome(input){
  return isPalindrome(input.replace(/ /g,'').toLowerCase());
}

function isPalindrome(input) {
  if (input.length <= 1) {
    return true;
  } else {
    return (input[0] === input[input.length-1]) &&
            isPalindrome(input.substring(1,input.length-1));
  }
}

Tests:

detects an empty string as a palindrome
checkPalindrome('');
detects a single character as a palindrome
checkPalindrome('a');
detects palindromic word
checkPalindrome('hannah');
detects non-palindromic word
checkPalindrome('spanner');
detects palindromic sentence with capitalisation
checkPalindrome('Mr owl ate my metal worm');
detects palindromic sentence
checkPalindrome('Never Odd Or Even');
detects non-palindromic sentence
checkPalindrome('Never Even Or Odd');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
detects an empty string as a palindrome
detects a single character as a palindrome
detects palindromic word
detects non-palindromic word
detects palindromic sentence with capitalisation
detects palindromic sentence
detects non-palindromic sentence

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code that checks if a given input string is a palindrome (i.e., it reads the same backward as forward). The test cases cover various scenarios, including empty strings, single characters, palindromic words, non-palindromic words, and palindromic sentences with capitalization.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are likely being compared:

1. **Naive approach**: This involves creating a new string by removing all whitespace and converting the input to lowercase, and then recursively checking if the first character matches the last character of the modified string.
2. **Optimized approach**: This might involve using a more efficient data structure or algorithm to avoid unnecessary string manipulation and comparisons.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Naive approach:**

Pros:

* Simple to understand and implement
* Easy to optimize for specific use cases

Cons:

* Inefficient due to repeated string creation and comparison operations
* May lead to poor performance for large input strings or frequent iterations

**Optimized approach:**

Pros:

* Can take advantage of browser caching and faster execution times
* Might be optimized using more efficient algorithms or data structures (e.g., using a trie or suffix tree)

Cons:

* More complex to implement and understand, especially without prior knowledge of the specific optimization techniques used
* May require additional resources or memory to execute efficiently

**Library Usage**

The benchmark appears to use no external libraries for this particular test case. However, if we consider more general cases where a library might be useful (e.g., string manipulation, data structures), some options include:

* `String.prototype.replace()`: used to remove whitespace from the input string
* `Array.prototype.indexOf()`: potentially used in an optimized approach to find the first character of the palindrome

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code appears to be standard JavaScript, using only basic operations like conditional statements, loops, and function calls.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches for this benchmark could involve:

1. **Caching**: storing the results of previously run test cases to avoid redundant computations
2. **Parallel execution**: running multiple test cases concurrently to measure performance under heavy loads
3. **Different hardware or environment configurations**: testing on various devices, operating systems, or browser versions to account for potential differences in performance

By exploring these alternatives and optimizing the code further, we can potentially squeeze out more performance gains from the JavaScript interpreter.

In conclusion, this benchmark measures the performance of a JavaScript palindrome checker by comparing two approaches: a naive approach that creates new strings and recursively checks for palindromes, and an optimized approach that might utilize browser caching or more efficient algorithms.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 52 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
detects an empty string as a palindrome	2182746.0 Ops/sec
detects a single character as a palindrome	1858438.0 Ops/sec
detects palindromic word	890442.6 Ops/sec
detects non-palindromic word	1595143.0 Ops/sec
detects palindromic sentence with capitalisation	376856.7 Ops/sec
detects palindromic sentence	442971.0 Ops/sec
detects non-palindromic sentence	1133257.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Palindrome checker (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: detects an empty string as a palindrome vs detects a single character as a palindrome vs detects palindromic word vs detects non-palindromic word vs detects palindromic sentence with capitalisation vs detects palindromic sentence vs detects non-palindromic sentence

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

detects an empty string as a palindrome

detects a single character as a palindrome

detects palindromic word

detects non-palindromic word

detects palindromic sentence with capitalisation

detects palindromic sentence

detects non-palindromic sentence

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):