Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
UUID Implentations Comparison
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Native Test Case vs Javascript Test Case
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Native Test Case
var x = crypto.randomUUID(); return x;
Javascript Test Case
let d = Date.now(); if ( typeof performance !== 'undefined' && typeof performance.now === 'function' ) { d += performance.now(); // use high-precision timer if available } var x = 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function (c) { const r = (d + Math.random() * 16) % 16 | 0; d = Math.floor(d / 16); return (c === 'x' ? r : (r & 0x3) | 0x8).toString(16); }); return x;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Native Test Case
Javascript Test Case
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Purpose** The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two UUID (Universally Unique Identifier) generation approaches in JavaScript: a native approach using the `crypto` module, and a JavaScript-only approach that uses high-precision timer and string manipulation. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Native Approach**: This approach uses the built-in `crypto.randomUUID()` function, which is optimized for performance and generates a cryptographically secure UUID. 2. **JavaScript Approach**: This approach uses a custom implementation that generates a random UUID using high-precision timer and string manipulation. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Native Approach (Crypto Module)** Pros: * Optimized for performance and security * Generates cryptographically secure UUIDs * Less prone to errors due to built-in validation and normalization Cons: * Limited control over the generated UUID's format and structure * May not be suitable for custom or specialized use cases **JavaScript Approach** Pros: * Provides more control over the generated UUID's format and structure * Can be customized to meet specific requirements * Does not rely on external libraries or modules Cons: * May be slower due to string manipulation and precision calculations * Requires manual validation and normalization, which can lead to errors * Less secure than the native approach due to potential vulnerabilities in custom implementation **Library Usage** In this benchmark, two libraries are used: 1. **`crypto` module**: A built-in JavaScript library for generating cryptographically secure UUIDs. 2. None (JavaScript Approach uses custom implementation only) **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Preparation Code and JSON Interpretation** The provided `Script Preparation Code` field is empty, which means that the test script should be self-contained and not require any external setup. The `Html Preparation Code` field is also empty, indicating that the test should not rely on any HTML-specific functionality. To create a benchmark like this, you would need to write two JavaScript functions: one for generating UUIDs using the native approach (`crypto.randomUUID()`), and another for generating UUIDs using the custom JavaScript approach. The benchmark script would then run both functions multiple times, measuring their execution time and comparing the results. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative approaches to generating UUIDs, some options include: 1. **`uuid-v4` library**: A popular and widely-used library for generating version 4 UUIDs. 2. **`uuid-os` library**: A library for generating OS-specific UUIDs. 3. **`random-uuid` library**: A simple library for generating random UUIDs. Keep in mind that these alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, security, and customizability compared to the native approach using `crypto.randomUUID()`.
Related benchmarks:
UUID perf test
UUID Generation
UUID Test 3
UUID Generation 2
Math.random vs crypto.getRandomValues vs uuid
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?