Benchmark: string array duplicates

Tests:

helper function
function dup(str) { function removeDuplicateLetters(word) { return word .split("") .filter((letter, index, arr) => letter !== arr[index - 1]) .join(""); } return str.map((word) => removeDuplicateLetters(word)); } console.log( dup(["abracadabra", "allottee", "assessee"]), ` => ["abracadabra","alote","asese"]` ); console.log(dup(["kelless", "keenness"]), ` => ["keles","kenes"]`); console.log(dup(["hello", "world"]), ` => ["helo", "world"]`); console.log(dup(["hi", "world"]), ` => ["hi", "world"]`); console.log(dup([]), ` => []`);
all in one
function dup(str) { return str.map((word) => word .split("") .filter((letter, index, arr) => letter !== arr[index - 1]) .join("") ); } console.log( dup(["abracadabra", "allottee", "assessee"]), ` => ["abracadabra","alote","asese"]` ); console.log(dup(["kelless", "keenness"]), ` => ["keles","kenes"]`); console.log(dup(["hello", "world"]), ` => ["helo", "world"]`); console.log(dup(["hi", "world"]), ` => ["hi", "world"]`); console.log(dup([]), ` => []`);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
helper function
all in one

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.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case for measuring the performance of two different approaches to removing duplicates from an array of strings.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test case has a single `Benchmark Definition` that defines a function `dup(str)` which takes an array of strings as input. The function uses two approaches:

1. **Helper Function Approach**: This approach uses a helper function `removeDuplicateLetters(word)` to remove duplicates from each individual word in the string, and then maps the resulting array of words back to the original string.
2. **All-in-One Approach**: This approach uses a single-line expression to remove duplicates directly from the input string.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared in terms of their performance, measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) on various devices and platforms.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Helper Function Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to understand and maintain due to its modular structure.
		+ Can be reused in other contexts where similar string processing is required.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the extra function call.
		+ Less concise and may be slightly slower than the all-in-one approach.
2. **All-in-One Approach**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and potentially faster due to fewer lines of code.
		+ Eliminates the need for an extra function call.
	* Cons:
		+ May be harder to understand and maintain due to its complex expression.
		+ Less modular and may not be as flexible in different contexts.

**Library Used**

The `split()` method is used to split the string into individual words, which is a built-in JavaScript method that splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator. In this case, the separator is assumed to be whitespace (spaces, tabs, etc.).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The test uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not rely on any proprietary extensions or built-in methods that may not be supported by older browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If the all-in-one approach is deemed too complex or hard to maintain, alternative approaches could include:

1. Using a regular expression to remove duplicates from each word.
2. Utilizing a third-party library like `lodash` which provides a `uniqBy` function for removing duplicates from an array of objects (or strings).
3. Implementing the duplicate removal logic manually using bitwise operations or other low-level techniques.

These alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project, as well as personal preference and familiarity with different approaches.

Related benchmarks:

string array duplicates (version: 0)

https://www.codewars.com/kata/59f08f89a5e129c543000069/solutions/javascript

Comparing performance of: helper function vs all in one

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

helper function

all in one

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):