Benchmark: string-hashcode2

Script Preparation code:

function hashCode1(str){
  var hash = 0;
  if (str.length == 0) return hash;
  for (i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
    char = str.charCodeAt(i);
    hash = ((hash<<5)-hash)+char;
    hash = hash & hash; // Convert to 32bit integer
  }
  return hash;
}

function hashCode2(str) {
  var hash = 0, i, chr;
  if (str.length === 0) return hash;
  for (i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
    chr   = str.charCodeAt(i);
    hash  = ((hash << 5) - hash) + chr;
    hash |= 0; // Convert to 32bit integer
  }
  return hash;
};

function hashCode3(str) {
  var hash = 5381,
      i    = str.length;

  while(i) {
    hash = (hash * 33) ^ str.charCodeAt(--i);
  }
  return hash >>> 0;
}

function hashCode4(str) {
  var hash = 0, i = 0, length = str.length;

  for (; i < length; i++) {
    hash += str.charCodeAt(i) * (31**(length - i - 1));
  }
  return hash;
}

Tests:

hashCode1
hashCode1('qwerty')
hashCode2
hashCode2('qwerty')
hashCode3
hashCode3('qwerty')
hashCode4
hashCode4('qwerty')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
hashCode1
hashCode2
hashCode3
hashCode4

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.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial, and MeasureThat.net provides a fantastic platform for benchmarking.

**Benchmark Definition Json Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of different string hash code functions. The main components are:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark (e.g., "string-hashcode2").
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark, which is empty in this case.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript function that prepares the test environment and performs any necessary setup before running the actual benchmark. In this case, there are four functions (`hashCode1`, `hashCode2`, `hashCode3`, and `hashCode4`) that perform different string hash code calculations.

**Options Compared**

The four options compared in this benchmark are:

1. **hashCode1**: A simple implementation of a string hash code function using bitwise operations.
2. **hashCode2**: Another simple implementation using bitwise operations, but with some minor differences from hashCode1.
3. **hashCode3**: A more efficient implementation that uses a rolling hash function and multiplication to reduce the number of iterations.
4. **hashCode4**: A custom implementation that multiplies each character's code by a power of 31 to create a unique hash value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **hashCode1**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May be slower than other implementations due to its simplicity.
2. **hashCode2**:
	* Pros: Similar to hashCode1 but with some minor optimizations.
	* Cons: No significant performance gains compared to hashCode1.
3. **hashCode3**:
	* Pros: More efficient than the first two options, using a rolling hash function and multiplication to reduce iterations.
	* Cons: May require more complex logic to implement correctly.
4. **hashCode4**:
	* Pros: Unique approach that multiplies each character's code by a power of 31, which could lead to faster performance.
	* Cons: Less intuitive than other options, and its implementation may be less efficient in practice.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark functions use any external libraries. They are self-contained and only rely on built-in JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no specific special features or syntax used in this benchmark that would make it difficult to understand without prior knowledge of JavaScript. The focus is on comparing different string hash code implementations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare more string hash code functions, you could add additional test cases with different implementation approaches (e.g., using a different algorithm, like the FNV-1a hash function). Additionally, MeasureThat.net allows you to create custom benchmarks using your own JavaScript functions, so you can experiment with various implementations and see how they perform.

By understanding these factors, you can effectively analyze and compare the performance of different string hash code functions in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

string-hashcode2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: hashCode1 vs hashCode2 vs hashCode3 vs hashCode4

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

hashCode1

hashCode2

hashCode3

hashCode4

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):