Benchmark: zgolfy - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

z=v=>{d=i=x=0;for(c of v){c=c.charCodeAt();if((c>47&&c<58?d++:c==32||c==45||c==95?i!=2?'x':x++:'x')=='x')return !1;i++}return d==5&&x<2};
y=v=>{d=i=0;for(c of v){c=c.charCodeAt();if((c>47&&c<58?d++:i==2&&c==32||c==45||c==95?i:'x')=='x')return !1;i++}return d==5&&i<7};
x=v=>{d=i=0;for(c of v){c=c.charCodeAt();if((c>47&&c<58?d++:i==2&&c==32||c==45||c==95?i:-1)==-1)return !1;i++}return d==5&&i<7};
w=v=>{d=i=0;for(c of v){l=c.charCodeAt();if((l>47&&l<58?d++:i==2&&' -_'.includes(c)?i:-1)==-1)return !1;i++}return d==5&&i<7};
u=v=>{d=i=0;for(c of v){if((c<10&&c!=' '?d++:i==2&&' -_'.includes(c)?i:-1)==-1)return !1;i++}return d==5&&i<7};

var arr = [
  ["12349", true],
  ["00000", true],
  ["01 234", true],
  ["01-234", true],
  ["01_234", true],
  ["0000", false],
  ["abc", false],
  ["1b345", false],
  ["1.-345", false],
  ["12$345", false],
  ["123 45", false],
  ["12--345", false],
  ["12-3456", false],
  ["0123456", false],
  ["", false],
  ["0b101", false],
  ["0x101", false],
  ["99999", true],
  ["-9999", false],
  ["-0001", false],
  ["+0001", false]
]

Tests:

1
arr.every(([v, out]) => { return z(v) === out; });
2
arr.every(([v, out]) => { return y(v) === out; });
3
arr.every(([v, out]) => { return x(v) === out; });
4
arr.every(([v, out]) => { return w(v) === out; });
5
arr.every(([v, out]) => { return u(v) === out; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3
4
5

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of four different JavaScript functions, each designed to validate whether a given string is in a specific format. The functions are:

1. `z(v)`: Verifies if `v` contains any digits (0-9) followed by a digit.
2. `y(v)`: Checks if `v` contains any digits (0-9) followed by a space, hyphen, or underscore.
3. `x(v)`: Validates if `v` contains any digit followed by a space, hyphen, or underscore.
4. `w(v)`: Verifies if `v` contains any alphanumeric characters (letters and numbers) preceded by a hyphen, space, or underscore.

The benchmark uses an array of strings (`arr`) as input data, where each string is either valid or invalid according to the specified format rules. The functions are called in sequence on each element of the array using the `every()` method, which returns `true` if all elements pass the test.

**Comparison Options**

The four functions differ in their approach to validation:

1. **Exact matching**: Functions `z(v)` and `w(v)` use exact matching rules to validate strings. They iterate through each character of the input string, checking for specific conditions (e.g., digits followed by a digit). If any condition is not met, the function returns `false`.
2. **Regex-based validation**: Function `y(v)` uses regular expressions to validate strings. It checks if the input string matches a pattern that includes digits, spaces, hyphens, or underscores.
3. **Iterative validation**: Functions `x(v)` and `w(v)` use iterative approaches to validate strings. They iterate through each character of the input string, checking for specific conditions (e.g., digit followed by a space or hyphen). If any condition is not met, the function returns `false`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Exact matching**: Pros:
	* Simple to implement.
	* Fast execution time.
Cons:
	* May be less flexible than regex-based validation.
	* May not handle edge cases correctly.
2. **Regex-based validation**: Pros:
	* Highly flexible and can handle complex patterns.
	* Easy to maintain and update patterns.
Cons:
	* Slower execution time due to regex processing.
	* May have performance issues with large input data.
3. **Iterative validation**: Pros:
	* Fast execution time.
	* Simple to implement.
Cons:
	* Less flexible than regex-based validation.
	* May not handle edge cases correctly.

**Optimization**

The benchmark's optimization lies in its use of the `every()` method, which allows the functions to be called in sequence on each element of the array. This approach ensures that all elements pass the test before returning a result.

In terms of performance, the exact matching and iterative validation approaches are likely to be faster than the regex-based validation approach due to their simplicity and lack of overhead from regex processing.

**Device Platform and Browser**

The benchmark's results show significant variations in execution times across different devices platforms and browsers. This highlights the importance of considering device-specific factors when optimizing performance-critical code.

In conclusion, the provided benchmark measures the performance of four JavaScript functions designed for validation tasks. Each function has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of the application.

Related benchmarks:

zgolfy (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

4

5

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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