Benchmark: random - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var possibilities = {
    lowerCased: 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz',
    capitals: 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ',
    numbers: '0123456789',
    special: '~!@#$%^&()_+-={}[];\','
};

function randomId(len, pattern) {
    if (!len) len = 30;
    if (!pattern) pattern = 'aA0';

    var chars = '';

    pattern.split('').forEach((a) => {
        if (!isNaN(parseInt(a))) {
            chars += possibilities.numbers;
        } else if (/[a-z]/.test(a)) {
            chars += possibilities.lowerCased;
        } else if (/[A-Z]/.test(a)) {
            chars += possibilities.capitals;
        } else {
            chars += possibilities.special;
        }
    });

    var result = '';

    for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
        result += chars.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * chars.length));
    }

    return result;
}

function randomId2(len = 30, pattern = 'aA0') {
  let chars = '';
  let pl = pattern.length;
  while (pl--) {
    const ch = pattern[pl];
    if (!isNaN(ch)) {
      chars += possibilities.numbers;
    } else if (ch === ch.toLowerCase() && ch !== ch.toUpperCase()) {
      chars += possibilities.lowerCased;
    } else if (ch !== ch.toLowerCase() && ch === ch.toUpperCase()) {
      chars += possibilities.capitals;
    } else {
      chars += possibilities.special;
    }
  }
  
  let result = '';
  const cl = chars.length;
  let i = cl;
  while (i--) {
    result += chars[Math.floor(Math.random() * cl)];
  }
  
  return result;
}

Tests:

randomId
randomId(1000000, 'aA0-');
randomid2
randomId2(1000000, 'aA0-');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
randomId
randomid2

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, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is represented by the `Script Preparation Code` section in the JSON file. In this case, it generates two functions: `randomId` and `randomId2`. These functions are used to create random IDs of a specified length with a custom pattern.

**Purpose of each function:**

1. `randomId(len, pattern)`: This function takes an optional `len` parameter (defaulting to 30 if not provided) and an optional `pattern` parameter (defaulting to `'aA0'` if not provided). It generates a random ID by concatenating characters from different character sets based on the pattern. The character sets are defined in the `possibilities` object:
	* `lowerCased`: lowercase letters (`a-z`)
	* `capitals`: uppercase letters (`A-Z`)
	* `numbers`: digits (`0-9`)
	* `special`: special characters (`~!@#$%^&()_+-={}[];\\'`)
2. `randomId2(len = 30, pattern = 'aA0')`: This function is similar to the first one but uses a different approach. It uses a while loop to iterate over the pattern and selects characters from the corresponding character set based on their case (lowercase, uppercase, or special). The rest of the function is identical to the first one.

**Comparison:**

The two functions are being compared in terms of their execution performance.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. `randomId`:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and easier to read
		+ Uses a simpler approach with less overhead
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of concatenating strings using the `+` operator
2. `randomId2`:
	* Pros:
		+ May be faster due to the reduced overhead of string concatenation and the use of an array-like object (`chars`) for character selection
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise and more verbose
		+ The logic is slightly more complex

**Other considerations:**

1. **Character set usage**: Both functions use a mix of lowercase, uppercase, digits, and special characters to generate random IDs. However, `randomId2` uses a more explicit approach with separate character sets for each case.
2. **Pattern complexity**: The pattern `'aA0-'` is relatively simple and only contains letters, digits, and hyphens. If the pattern were more complex or included other characters, the functions' behavior might change.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided functions use external libraries.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

The benchmark definition uses some special JavaScript features:

1. **Template literals**: The `possibilities` object is used to define character sets as strings, which are then used in template literals (`''`) to generate random IDs.
2. **ES6 features**: The functions use modern ES6 features like arrow functions and the spread operator (`...`).

Overall, the benchmark compares two approaches to generating random IDs with different execution performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

random (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: randomId vs randomid2

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

randomId

randomid2

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):