Benchmark: getCasePermutationsMore

Script Preparation code:

function getCasePermutationsString(S) {
  let result = [];
  getCasePermutationsStringRecursive(S, 0, '', result);
  return result;
}

function getCasePermutationsStringRecursive(S, idx, substr, result) {
	if (idx === S.length) {
		result.push(substr);
		return;
	}

	const char = S[idx];
	const nextIdx = idx + 1;

	if (char >= '0' && char <= '9') {
		getCasePermutationsStringRecursive(S, nextIdx, substr + char, result);
		return;
	}
	getCasePermutationsStringRecursive(S, nextIdx, substr + char.toLowerCase(), result);
	getCasePermutationsStringRecursive(S, nextIdx, substr + char.toUpperCase(), result);

	return result;
}

function getCasePermutationsArr(S) {
  let result = [];
  let subStrArray = Array(S.length);
  getCasePermutationsArrRecursive(S, 0, subStrArray, result);
  return result;
}

function getCasePermutationsArrRecursive(S, idx, subStrArr, result) {
	if (idx === S.length) {
		result.push(subStrArr.join(''));
		return;
	}

	const char = S[idx];
	const nextIdx = idx + 1;

	if (char >= '0' && char <= '9') {
		subStrArr[idx] = char;
		getCasePermutationsArrRecursive(S, nextIdx, subStrArr, result);
		return;
	}
	subStrArr[idx] = char.toLowerCase();
	getCasePermutationsArrRecursive(S, nextIdx, subStrArr, result);
	
	subStrArr[idx] = char.toUpperCase();
	getCasePermutationsArrRecursive(S, nextIdx, subStrArr, result);
}

Tests:

Array version
getCasePermutationsArr("a1b2c3d4e5f6g7h8i9j0")
String version
getCasePermutationsString("a1b2c3d4e5f6g7h8i9j0")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array version
String version

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.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two approaches for generating permutations of a given string:

1. **String version**: `getCasePermutationsString("a1b2c3d4e5f6g7h8i9j0")`
2. **Array version**: `getCasePermutationsArr(["a1", "b2", "c3", "d4", "e5", "f6", "g7", "h8", "i9", "j0"])`

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two recursive functions:

* `getCasePermutationsString(S)`: generates permutations as an array of strings
* `getCasePermutationsArr(S)`: generates permutations as an array of arrays

These functions iterate over the input string, inserting digits (0-9) in all possible positions, while considering both lowercase and uppercase versions.

**Library**

No libraries are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine used by the test browser has built-in support for strings and arrays.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here, but we're using some advanced techniques:

* Recursive functions (`getCasePermutationsStringRecursive` and `getCasePermutationsArrRecursive`)
* String manipulation (e.g., `substr + char`, `substrArray[idx] = char`)

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **String version**: generates permutations as an array of strings
2. **Array version**: generates permutations as an array of arrays

This comparison highlights differences in memory allocation, iteration strategies, and overall performance.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* **String version**:
	+ Pros: potentially more efficient for generating permutations as strings (e.g., fewer memory allocations)
	+ Cons: may be slower due to string concatenation and interpolation
* **Array version**:
	+ Pros: may be faster due to array operations and indexing
	+ Cons: requires more memory allocation and manipulation

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting these results, consider the following factors:

* Cache performance: How do the different approaches affect cache hits and misses?
* Memory allocation: Are there significant differences in memory allocation patterns between the two approaches?
* Iteration strategy: Do the recursive functions have a significant impact on performance?

**Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore other alternatives, consider the following:

* **Using `String.prototype.split()` and `String.prototype.join()`**: Instead of using concatenation and interpolation, you could use `split()` and `join()` to generate permutations as strings.
* **Using `Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.filter()`**: You could use these methods to generate permutations as arrays of characters or numbers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional overhead or complexity, so it's essential to evaluate their performance impact.

Related benchmarks:

getCasePermutationsMore (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array version vs String version

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array version

String version

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):