Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Generate combinations
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
short vs longer
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
short
const getAllSubsets = theArray => theArray.reduce( (subsets, value) => subsets.concat( subsets.map(set => [value,...set]) ), [[]] ); getAllSubsets([1,2,3,4,5,6])
longer
const wrap = (variant) => [variant].flat() const combo = ([head, ...rest], items) => (!head ? [items] : [...combo(rest, [...items, head]), ...combo(rest, items)]) const getCombinations = (items, separator = "/") => combo(wrap(items), []) .sort((a, b) => b.length - a.length) .map((part) => part.join(separator)) getCombinations([1,2,3,4,5,6])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
short
longer
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):
**Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents two microbenchmarks on the MeasureThat.net website, designed to test the performance of generating combinations in JavaScript. **Benchmark Definitions and Script Preparation Codes** There are no script preparation codes or HTML preparation codes specified in the benchmark definitions. This means that the test cases assume a clean slate, with only the JavaScript code provided. **Individual Test Cases** The two test cases differ in their approach to generate combinations: 1. **"short"**: This test case uses a simple recursive function `getAllSubsets` that generates subsets by concatenating individual values with existing sets. 2. **"longer"**: This test case uses a more complex iterative approach `combo` and `getCombinations`. The `combo` function is used to generate combinations recursively, while the `getCombinations` function wraps it with additional filtering and sorting steps. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **"short"`: * Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and likely to be fast for small inputs. * Cons: May not perform well for large inputs due to its recursive nature and lack of optimization. 2. **"longer"`: * Pros: More efficient for larger inputs, as it avoids the overhead of recursion and uses iteration instead. * Cons: More complex, harder to understand, and may require more optimization effort. **Libraries Used** None of the provided benchmark code uses any external libraries. However, some modern JavaScript engines may optimize or provide built-in functions that can be used under the hood. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definitions. The code appears to be standard JavaScript, using basic array methods and operators. **Other Alternatives** For generating combinations, there are other algorithms and approaches available, such as: 1. **Brute Force**: Exhaustively generate all possible combinations of a given size. 2. **Bit Manipulation**: Use bit manipulation techniques to generate combinations without recursion. 3. **Dynamic Programming**: Break down the problem into smaller sub-problems and store intermediate results in an array. Each approach has its trade-offs, and the choice of algorithm depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the application. In summary, the benchmark test case "short" uses a simple recursive function to generate combinations, while "longer" uses a more complex iterative approach. The pros and cons of each approach are discussed above, with the latter being more efficient for larger inputs but also more complex and harder to understand.
Related benchmarks:
String.split: Random vs Fixed strings
generator vs array
range generator vs array
While vs For Loop - Luigi 3
Generator and for-of
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?