Counting Sheep (Beatrix Trotter) Javascript

Counting Sheep (Beatrix Trotter) Javascript - javascript

I am trying to solve a question on CodeWars that was part of the Google CodeJam 2016 qualification rounds.
https://www.codewars.com/kata/bleatrix-trotter-the-counting-sheep/train/javascript
I believe my code accounts for all test cases, my only issue is that it cannot be submitted on codewars because it has a runtime greater than 12000 ms.
How Can I make my Code more efficient?? also is there a best practice for testing whether the loop will be infinite.
function trotter(n) {
var tracker = [];
var sum = [];
var snacker = n;
for(var i = 0; tracker.length < 10; i++){
sum = snacker.toString().split('');
sum.forEach(function(num) {
if (tracker.indexOf(num) == -1) {
tracker.push(num);
}
});
snacker += n;
}
return tracker.length === 10 ? snacker - n : "INSOMNIA";
}

When performance matters and reduced readability is not an issue you should:
Prefer for and while loops rather than built-ins like map, forEach...
In recent (2016) versions of JavaScript, it looks like for loops, specially reverse for loops, are the most performant option.
Also, keep in mind that you don't need to use its 3 expressions. For example, for me...:
let found = 0;
for (;found < 10;) {
and
let j = chars.length;
for (;j;) {
consistently returned better results than the same with the initialisation in the initialisation slot and than while loops, although in this latter case the difference was not so big.
For more one this, see Javascript Performance: While vs For Loops
When using foo.bar in a while's or for's expression, such as for (let i = 0; i < array.length; ++i), prefer to declare the limit condition above so that it is not evaluated each time, as that involves an object lookup:
const totalElements = array.length;
for (let i = 0; i < totalElements; ++i) { ... }
Prefer pre-increment instead of post-increment. The latter will create a temporary variable storing the pre-incrementation value, which will return to you, while the former will first do the increment and then return the incremented value. No temporary variable needed.
For more on this, see post increment vs pre increment - Javascript Optimization
Actually, if the result is going to be the same regardless which one you use, then I would advise you to use pre-increment whenever possible.
Avoid built-in methods that have an equivalent expression. For example, (n + '') is more performant than n.toString().
Avoid type conversions and prefer using integers rather than floats or strings as modern JS engines tag variable types. That means that, on one hand, changing types will have a performance penalty, and, on the other hand, that using them consistently will allow the engine to do some type-specific optimisation.
For more on this, see https://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/speed/v8/
Use bitwise operators when possible. For example, an integer division can be done with Math.floor(a /b) or with a / b | 0, which is almost twice as fast.
For more on integer division in JavaScript, see this interesting thread: How to perform integer division and get the remainder in JavaScript?
Prefer an object lookup (object.prop or object['prop']) rather than using Array.prototype.indexOf(...).
See Javascript: what lookup is faster: array.indexOf vs object hash?
Avoid using arrays and objects and related methods when there are alternatives with simpler structures or inmutable data structures.
For example, #RobG's solution uses splice. While I'm not aware of the internal implementation, probably it is shifting the elements that come after the deleted ones to compact the array again and updating its length as well.
With my solution, however, the length of the array is always the same and you are just changing its values from false to true, which involves much less overhead, as there's no need to reallocate space.
Use typed arrays when possible, though I tried Uint8Array here, both assigning it true and 1, and none of them improved the times; the former actually almost doubled the time and the first one kept them more or less the same. Maybe it there was a BooleanArray it could work.
Keep in mind this is just a list of some techniques or features I think may help to speed up your example. I highly recommend you to read the external links I added as well in order to better understand how and why they work and where else they can be applied.
Moreover, in general, the lower level you keep your code, that is, you using basic data types and operations, the most performance it will be.
To prove that, below I show you a highly optimised version of this code that uses integer division (n / 10) | 0 and remainder (%).
function trotter(N) {
if (N === 0) return 'INSOMNIA';
const digits = [false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false];
let n;
let last = 0;
let found = 0;
for (;found < 10;) {
n = last += N;
for (;n;) {
const digit = n % 10;
n = (n / 10) | 0;
if (!digits[digit]) {
digits[digit] = true;
++found;
}
}
}
return last;
}
const numbers = [0, 2, 7, 125, 1625, 1692];
const outputs = ['INSOMNIA', 90, 70, 9000, 9750, 5076];
// CHECK IT WORKS FIRST:
numbers.map((number, index) => {
if (trotter(number) !== outputs[index]) {
console.log('EXPECTED = ' + outputs[index]);
console.log(' GOT = ' + trotter(number));
throw new Error('Incorrect value.');
}
});
// PERF. TEST:
const ITERATIONS = 1000000;
const t0 = performance.now();
for (let i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; ++i) {
numbers.map((number, index) => trotter(number));
}
const t1 = performance.now();
console.log(`AVG. TIME: ${ (t1 - t0) / ITERATIONS } ms. with ${ ITERATIONS } ITERATIONS`);
AVG. TIME: 0.0033206450000000005 ms. with 1000000 ITERATIONS
BROWSER: Google Chrome Version 59.0.3071.86 (Official Build) (64-bit)
OS: macOS Sierra
BRAND, MODEL: MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)
PROCESSOR: 2,8 GHz Intel Core i7
MEMORY: 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Below you can see my initial answer, which uses some of the other optimisations listed here, but still converts the number variable n to string and uses String.prototype.split() to get its digits.
It is almost 5 times slower then the one above!
function trotter(N) {
if (N === 0) return 'INSOMNIA';
const digits = [false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false];
let n = N;
let i = 0;
let found = 0;
for (;found < 10;) {
// There's no need for this multiplication:
n = N * ++i;
// Type conversion + Built-in String.prototype.split(), both can
// be avoided:
const chars = (n + '').split('');
let j = chars.length;
for (;j;) {
const digit = chars[--j];
if (!digits[digit]) {
digits[digit] = true;
++found;
}
}
}
return n;
}
const numbers = [0, 2, 7, 125, 1625, 1692];
const outputs = ['INSOMNIA', 90, 70, 9000, 9750, 5076];
// CHECK IT WORKS FIRST:
numbers.map((number, index) => {
if (trotter(number) !== outputs[index]) {
console.log('EXPECTED = ' + outputs[index]);
console.log(' GOT = ' + trotter(number));
throw new Error('Incorrect value.');
}
});
// PERF. TEST:
const ITERATIONS = 1000000;
const t0 = performance.now();
for (let i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; ++i) {
numbers.map((number, index) => trotter(number));
}
const t1 = performance.now();
console.log(`AVG. TIME: ${ (t1 - t0) / ITERATIONS } ms. with ${ ITERATIONS } ITERATIONS`);
AVG. TIME: 0.016428575000000004 ms. with 1000000 ITERATIONS
BROWSER: Google Chrome Version 59.0.3071.86 (Official Build) (64-bit)
OS: macOS Sierra
BRAND, MODEL: MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)
PROCESSOR: 2,8 GHz Intel Core i7
MEMORY: 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3

Another approach:
function trotter(n){
var unseen = '0123456789', last = 0;
while (unseen != '' && last < 72*n) {
last += n;
var reg = new RegExp('[' + last + ']+', 'g');
unseen = unseen.replace(reg, '');
}
return unseen != '' ? 'INSOMNIA' : last;
};
console.log('0 : ' + trotter(0));
console.log('125 : ' + trotter(125));
console.log('1625: ' + trotter(1625));

The following code has no special optimisations and uses all ECMA-262 ed 3 methods. It ran the full suite of tests in 339 ms.
function trotter(n){
var nums = ['0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9'];
var i = 1;
// Zero creates an infinite loop, so skip it
if (n !== 0) {
// While there are numbers to remove, keep going
// Limit loops to 100 just in case
while (nums.length && i < 100) {
// Get test number as an array of digits
var d = ('' + (n * i)).split('');
// For each digit, if in nums remove it
for (var j=0, jLen=d.length; j<jLen; j++) {
var idx = nums.indexOf(d[j]);
if (idx > -1) nums.splice(idx, 1);
}
i++;
}
}
// If there are numbers left, didn't get to sleep
// Otherwise, return last number seen (put d back together and make a numer)
return nums.length? 'INSOMNIA' : Number(d.join(''));
}
console.log('0 : ' + trotter(0));
console.log('125 : ' + trotter(125));
console.log('1625: ' + trotter(1625));
Most cases are resolved in about 10 iterations, however 125, 1250, 12500, etc. take 73 iterations, which I think is the most that any number takes.
Since Array methods may be slow, here's a string version that's about twice as fast:
function trotter(n){
var found = '';
if (n !== 0) {
var i = 1;
while (found.length < 10) {
var d = i * n + '';
var j = d.length;
while (j) {
var c = d[--j];
var idx = found.indexOf(c);
if (idx == -1) found += c;
}
i++;
}
}
return found.length == 10? +d : 'INSOMNIA';
}
[0, // Infinte loop case
125, // Max loop case
1625] // just a number
.forEach(function (n) {
console.log(n + ' : ' + trotter(n));
});
While doing while (found.length) is not optimal, it's typically only computed about 10 times, so not really significant to move outside the condition. An alternative is to include a counter that is incremented each time a digit is added to found, but this isn't really about optimising performance as much as finding something reasonable that works and passes the (undisclosed) tests at codewars.

Related

How to generate trillions of random IDs quickly [duplicate]

How do I create GUIDs (globally-unique identifiers) in JavaScript? The GUID / UUID should be at least 32 characters and should stay in the ASCII range to avoid trouble when passing them around.
I'm not sure what routines are available on all browsers, how "random" and seeded the built-in random number generator is, etc.

[Edited 2021-10-16 to reflect latest best-practices for producing RFC4122-compliant UUIDs]
Most readers here will want to use the uuid module. It is well-tested and supported.
The crypto.randomUUID() function is an emerging standard that is supported in Node.js and an increasing number of browsers. However because new browser APIs are restricted to secure contexts this method is only available to pages served locally (localhost or 127.0.0.1) or over HTTPS. If you're interested in seeing this restriction lifted for crypto.randomUUID() you can follow this GitHub issue.
If neither of those work for you, there is this method (based on the original answer to this question):
function uuidv4() {
return ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c =>
(c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16)
);
}
console.log(uuidv4());
Note: The use of any UUID generator that relies on Math.random() is strongly discouraged (including snippets featured in previous versions of this answer) for reasons best explained here. TL;DR: solutions based on Math.random() do not provide good uniqueness guarantees.

UUIDs (Universally Unique IDentifier), also known as GUIDs (Globally Unique IDentifier), according to RFC 4122, are identifiers designed to provide certain uniqueness guarantees.
While it is possible to implement RFC-compliant UUIDs in a few lines of JavaScript code (e.g., see #broofa's answer, below) there are several common pitfalls:
Invalid id format (UUIDs must be of the form "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-Mxxx-Nxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx", where x is one of [0-9, a-f] M is one of [1-5], and N is [8, 9, a, or b]
Use of a low-quality source of randomness (such as Math.random)
Thus, developers writing code for production environments are encouraged to use a rigorous, well-maintained implementation such as the uuid module.

I really like how clean Broofa's answer is, but it's unfortunate that poor implementations of Math.random leave the chance for collision.
Here's a similar RFC4122 version 4 compliant solution that solves that issue by offsetting the first 13 hex numbers by a hex portion of the timestamp, and once depleted offsets by a hex portion of the microseconds since pageload. That way, even if Math.random is on the same seed, both clients would have to generate the UUID the exact same number of microseconds since pageload (if high-perfomance time is supported) AND at the exact same millisecond (or 10,000+ years later) to get the same UUID:
function generateUUID() { // Public Domain/MIT
var d = new Date().getTime();//Timestamp
var d2 = ((typeof performance !== 'undefined') && performance.now && (performance.now()*1000)) || 0;//Time in microseconds since page-load or 0 if unsupported
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.random() * 16;//random number between 0 and 16
if(d > 0){//Use timestamp until depleted
r = (d + r)%16 | 0;
d = Math.floor(d/16);
} else {//Use microseconds since page-load if supported
r = (d2 + r)%16 | 0;
d2 = Math.floor(d2/16);
}
return (c === 'x' ? r : (r & 0x3 | 0x8)).toString(16);
});
}
var onClick = function(){
document.getElementById('uuid').textContent = generateUUID();
}
onClick();
#uuid { font-family: monospace; font-size: 1.5em; }
<p id="uuid"></p>
<button id="generateUUID" onclick="onClick();">Generate UUID</button>
Here's a fiddle to test.
Modernized snippet for ES6
const generateUUID = () => {
let
d = new Date().getTime(),
d2 = ((typeof performance !== 'undefined') && performance.now && (performance.now() * 1000)) || 0;
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, c => {
let r = Math.random() * 16;
if (d > 0) {
r = (d + r) % 16 | 0;
d = Math.floor(d / 16);
} else {
r = (d2 + r) % 16 | 0;
d2 = Math.floor(d2 / 16);
}
return (c == 'x' ? r : (r & 0x7 | 0x8)).toString(16);
});
};
const onClick = (e) => document.getElementById('uuid').textContent = generateUUID();
document.getElementById('generateUUID').addEventListener('click', onClick);
onClick();
#uuid { font-family: monospace; font-size: 1.5em; }
<p id="uuid"></p>
<button id="generateUUID">Generate UUID</button>

broofa's answer is pretty slick, indeed - impressively clever, really... RFC4122 compliant, somewhat readable, and compact. Awesome!
But if you're looking at that regular expression, those many replace() callbacks, toString()'s and Math.random() function calls (where he's only using four bits of the result and wasting the rest), you may start to wonder about performance. Indeed, joelpt even decided to toss out an RFC for generic GUID speed with generateQuickGUID.
But, can we get speed and RFC compliance? I say, YES! Can we maintain readability? Well... Not really, but it's easy if you follow along.
But first, my results, compared to broofa, guid (the accepted answer), and the non-rfc-compliant generateQuickGuid:
Desktop Android
broofa: 1617ms 12869ms
e1: 636ms 5778ms
e2: 606ms 4754ms
e3: 364ms 3003ms
e4: 329ms 2015ms
e5: 147ms 1156ms
e6: 146ms 1035ms
e7: 105ms 726ms
guid: 962ms 10762ms
generateQuickGuid: 292ms 2961ms
- Note: 500k iterations, results will vary by browser/CPU.
So by my 6th iteration of optimizations, I beat the most popular answer by over 12 times, the accepted answer by over 9 times, and the fast-non-compliant answer by 2-3 times. And I'm still RFC 4122 compliant.
Interested in how? I've put the full source on http://jsfiddle.net/jcward/7hyaC/3/ and on https://jsben.ch/xczxS
For an explanation, let's start with broofa's code:
function broofa() {
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.random()*16|0, v = c == 'x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
}
console.log(broofa())
So it replaces x with any random hexadecimal digit, y with random data (except forcing the top two bits to 10 per the RFC spec), and the regex doesn't match the - or 4 characters, so he doesn't have to deal with them. Very, very slick.
The first thing to know is that function calls are expensive, as are regular expressions (though he only uses 1, it has 32 callbacks, one for each match, and in each of the 32 callbacks it calls Math.random() and v.toString(16)).
The first step toward performance is to eliminate the RegEx and its callback functions and use a simple loop instead. This means we have to deal with the - and 4 characters whereas broofa did not. Also, note that we can use String Array indexing to keep his slick String template architecture:
function e1() {
var u='',i=0;
while(i++<36) {
var c='xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'[i-1],r=Math.random()*16|0,v=c=='x'?r:(r&0x3|0x8);
u+=(c=='-'||c=='4')?c:v.toString(16)
}
return u;
}
console.log(e1())
Basically, the same inner logic, except we check for - or 4, and using a while loop (instead of replace() callbacks) gets us an almost 3X improvement!
The next step is a small one on the desktop but makes a decent difference on mobile. Let's make fewer Math.random() calls and utilize all those random bits instead of throwing 87% of them away with a random buffer that gets shifted out each iteration. Let's also move that template definition out of the loop, just in case it helps:
function e2() {
var u='',m='xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx',i=0,rb=Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
while(i++<36) {
var c=m[i-1],r=rb&0xf,v=c=='x'?r:(r&0x3|0x8);
u+=(c=='-'||c=='4')?c:v.toString(16);rb=i%8==0?Math.random()*0xffffffff|0:rb>>4
}
return u
}
console.log(e2())
This saves us 10-30% depending on platform. Not bad. But the next big step gets rid of the toString function calls altogether with an optimization classic - the look-up table. A simple 16-element lookup table will perform the job of toString(16) in much less time:
function e3() {
var h='0123456789abcdef';
var k='xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx';
/* same as e4() below */
}
function e4() {
var h=['0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','a','b','c','d','e','f'];
var k=['x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','-','x','x','x','x','-','4','x','x','x','-','y','x','x','x','-','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x'];
var u='',i=0,rb=Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
while(i++<36) {
var c=k[i-1],r=rb&0xf,v=c=='x'?r:(r&0x3|0x8);
u+=(c=='-'||c=='4')?c:h[v];rb=i%8==0?Math.random()*0xffffffff|0:rb>>4
}
return u
}
console.log(e4())
The next optimization is another classic. Since we're only handling four bits of output in each loop iteration, let's cut the number of loops in half and process eight bits in each iteration. This is tricky since we still have to handle the RFC compliant bit positions, but it's not too hard. We then have to make a larger lookup table (16x16, or 256) to store 0x00 - 0xFF, and we build it only once, outside the e5() function.
var lut = []; for (var i=0; i<256; i++) { lut[i] = (i<16?'0':'')+(i).toString(16); }
function e5() {
var k=['x','x','x','x','-','x','x','-','4','x','-','y','x','-','x','x','x','x','x','x'];
var u='',i=0,rb=Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
while(i++<20) {
var c=k[i-1],r=rb&0xff,v=c=='x'?r:(c=='y'?(r&0x3f|0x80):(r&0xf|0x40));
u+=(c=='-')?c:lut[v];rb=i%4==0?Math.random()*0xffffffff|0:rb>>8
}
return u
}
console.log(e5())
I tried an e6() that processes 16-bits at a time, still using the 256-element LUT, and it showed the diminishing returns of optimization. Though it had fewer iterations, the inner logic was complicated by the increased processing, and it performed the same on desktop, and only ~10% faster on mobile.
The final optimization technique to apply - unroll the loop. Since we're looping a fixed number of times, we can technically write this all out by hand. I tried this once with a single random variable, r, that I kept reassigning, and performance tanked. But with four variables assigned random data up front, then using the lookup table, and applying the proper RFC bits, this version smokes them all:
var lut = []; for (var i=0; i<256; i++) { lut[i] = (i<16?'0':'')+(i).toString(16); }
function e7()
{
var d0 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
var d1 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
var d2 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
var d3 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
return lut[d0&0xff]+lut[d0>>8&0xff]+lut[d0>>16&0xff]+lut[d0>>24&0xff]+'-'+
lut[d1&0xff]+lut[d1>>8&0xff]+'-'+lut[d1>>16&0x0f|0x40]+lut[d1>>24&0xff]+'-'+
lut[d2&0x3f|0x80]+lut[d2>>8&0xff]+'-'+lut[d2>>16&0xff]+lut[d2>>24&0xff]+
lut[d3&0xff]+lut[d3>>8&0xff]+lut[d3>>16&0xff]+lut[d3>>24&0xff];
}
console.log(e7())
Modualized: http://jcward.com/UUID.js - UUID.generate()
The funny thing is, generating 16 bytes of random data is the easy part. The whole trick is expressing it in string format with RFC compliance, and it's most tightly accomplished with 16 bytes of random data, an unrolled loop and lookup table.
I hope my logic is correct -- it's very easy to make a mistake in this kind of tedious bit work. But the outputs look good to me. I hope you enjoyed this mad ride through code optimization!
Be advised: my primary goal was to show and teach potential optimization strategies. Other answers cover important topics such as collisions and truly random numbers, which are important for generating good UUIDs.

Use:
let uniqueId = Date.now().toString(36) + Math.random().toString(36).substring(2);
document.getElementById("unique").innerHTML =
Math.random().toString(36).substring(2) + (new Date()).getTime().toString(36);
<div id="unique">
</div>
If IDs are generated more than 1 millisecond apart, they are 100% unique.
If two IDs are generated at shorter intervals, and assuming that the random method is truly random, this would generate IDs that are 99.99999999999999% likely to be globally unique (collision in 1 of 10^15).
You can increase this number by adding more digits, but to generate 100% unique IDs you will need to use a global counter.
If you need RFC compatibility, this formatting will pass as a valid version 4 GUID:
let u = Date.now().toString(16) + Math.random().toString(16) + '0'.repeat(16);
let guid = [u.substr(0,8), u.substr(8,4), '4000-8' + u.substr(13,3), u.substr(16,12)].join('-');
let u = Date.now().toString(16)+Math.random().toString(16)+'0'.repeat(16);
let guid = [u.substr(0,8), u.substr(8,4), '4000-8' + u.substr(13,3), u.substr(16,12)].join('-');
document.getElementById("unique").innerHTML = guid;
<div id="unique">
</div>
The above code follow the intention, but not the letter of the RFC. Among other discrepancies it's a few random digits short. (Add more random digits if you need it) The upside is that this is really fast :)
You can test validity of your GUID here

Here's some code based on RFC 4122, section 4.4 (Algorithms for Creating a UUID from Truly Random or Pseudo-Random Number).
function createUUID() {
// http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt
var s = [];
var hexDigits = "0123456789abcdef";
for (var i = 0; i < 36; i++) {
s[i] = hexDigits.substr(Math.floor(Math.random() * 0x10), 1);
}
s[14] = "4"; // bits 12-15 of the time_hi_and_version field to 0010
s[19] = hexDigits.substr((s[19] & 0x3) | 0x8, 1); // bits 6-7 of the clock_seq_hi_and_reserved to 01
s[8] = s[13] = s[18] = s[23] = "-";
var uuid = s.join("");
return uuid;
}

This is the fastest GUID-like string generator method in the format XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX. It does not generate a standard-compliant GUID.
Ten million executions of this implementation take just 32.5 seconds, which is the fastest I've ever seen in a browser (the only solution without loops/iterations).
The function is as simple as:
/**
* Generates a GUID string.
* #returns {string} The generated GUID.
* #example af8a8416-6e18-a307-bd9c-f2c947bbb3aa
* #author Slavik Meltser.
* #link http://slavik.meltser.info/?p=142
*/
function guid() {
function _p8(s) {
var p = (Math.random().toString(16)+"000000000").substr(2,8);
return s ? "-" + p.substr(0,4) + "-" + p.substr(4,4) : p ;
}
return _p8() + _p8(true) + _p8(true) + _p8();
}
To test the performance, you can run this code:
console.time('t');
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
guid();
};
console.timeEnd('t');
I'm sure most of you will understand what I did there, but maybe there is at least one person that will need an explanation:
The algorithm:
The Math.random() function returns a decimal number between 0 and 1 with 16 digits after the decimal fraction point (for
example 0.4363923368509859).
Then we take this number and convert
it to a string with base 16 (from the example above we'll get
0.6fb7687f).
Math.random().toString(16).
Then we cut off the 0. prefix (0.6fb7687f =>
6fb7687f) and get a string with eight hexadecimal
characters long.
(Math.random().toString(16).substr(2,8).
Sometimes the Math.random() function will return
shorter number (for example 0.4363), due to zeros at the end (from the example above, actually the number is 0.4363000000000000). That's why I'm appending to this string "000000000" (a string with nine zeros) and then cutting it off with substr() function to make it nine characters exactly (filling zeros to the right).
The reason for adding exactly nine zeros is because of the worse case scenario, which is when the Math.random() function will return exactly 0 or 1 (probability of 1/10^16 for each one of them). That's why we needed to add nine zeros to it ("0"+"000000000" or "1"+"000000000"), and then cutting it off from the second index (third character) with a length of eight characters. For the rest of the cases, the addition of zeros will not harm the result because it is cutting it off anyway.
Math.random().toString(16)+"000000000").substr(2,8).
The assembly:
The GUID is in the following format XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX.
I divided the GUID into four pieces, each piece divided into two types (or formats): XXXXXXXX and -XXXX-XXXX.
Now I'm building the GUID using these two types to assemble the GUID with call four pieces, as follows: XXXXXXXX -XXXX-XXXX -XXXX-XXXX XXXXXXXX.
To differ between these two types, I added a flag parameter to a pair creator function _p8(s), the s parameter tells the function whether to add dashes or not.
Eventually we build the GUID with the following chaining: _p8() + _p8(true) + _p8(true) + _p8(), and return it.
Link to this post on my blog
Enjoy! :-)

Here is a totally non-compliant but very performant implementation to generate an ASCII-safe GUID-like unique identifier.
function generateQuickGuid() {
return Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15) +
Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15);
}
Generates 26 [a-z0-9] characters, yielding a UID that is both shorter and more unique than RFC compliant GUIDs. Dashes can be trivially added if human-readability matters.
Here are usage examples and timings for this function and several of this question's other answers. The timing was performed under Chrome m25, 10 million iterations each.
>>> generateQuickGuid()
"nvcjf1hs7tf8yyk4lmlijqkuo9"
"yq6gipxqta4kui8z05tgh9qeel"
"36dh5sec7zdj90sk2rx7pjswi2"
runtime: 32.5s
>>> GUID() // John Millikin
"7a342ca2-e79f-528e-6302-8f901b0b6888"
runtime: 57.8s
>>> regexGuid() // broofa
"396e0c46-09e4-4b19-97db-bd423774a4b3"
runtime: 91.2s
>>> createUUID() // Kevin Hakanson
"403aa1ab-9f70-44ec-bc08-5d5ac56bd8a5"
runtime: 65.9s
>>> UUIDv4() // Jed Schmidt
"f4d7d31f-fa83-431a-b30c-3e6cc37cc6ee"
runtime: 282.4s
>>> Math.uuid() // broofa
"5BD52F55-E68F-40FC-93C2-90EE069CE545"
runtime: 225.8s
>>> Math.uuidFast() // broofa
"6CB97A68-23A2-473E-B75B-11263781BBE6"
runtime: 92.0s
>>> Math.uuidCompact() // broofa
"3d7b7a06-0a67-4b67-825c-e5c43ff8c1e8"
runtime: 229.0s
>>> bitwiseGUID() // jablko
"baeaa2f-7587-4ff1-af23-eeab3e92"
runtime: 79.6s
>>>> betterWayGUID() // Andrea Turri
"383585b0-9753-498d-99c3-416582e9662c"
runtime: 60.0s
>>>> UUID() // John Fowler
"855f997b-4369-4cdb-b7c9-7142ceaf39e8"
runtime: 62.2s
Here is the timing code.
var r;
console.time('t');
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
r = FuncToTest();
};
console.timeEnd('t');

From sagi shkedy's technical blog:
function generateGuid() {
var result, i, j;
result = '';
for(j=0; j<32; j++) {
if( j == 8 || j == 12 || j == 16 || j == 20)
result = result + '-';
i = Math.floor(Math.random()*16).toString(16).toUpperCase();
result = result + i;
}
return result;
}
There are other methods that involve using an ActiveX control, but stay away from these!
I thought it was worth pointing out that no GUID generator can guarantee unique keys (check the Wikipedia article). There is always a chance of collisions. A GUID simply offers a large enough universe of keys to reduce the change of collisions to almost nil.

Here is a combination of the top voted answer, with a workaround for Chrome's collisions:
generateGUID = (typeof(window.crypto) != 'undefined' &&
typeof(window.crypto.getRandomValues) != 'undefined') ?
function() {
// If we have a cryptographically secure PRNG, use that
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6906916/collisions-when-generating-uuids-in-javascript
var buf = new Uint16Array(8);
window.crypto.getRandomValues(buf);
var S4 = function(num) {
var ret = num.toString(16);
while(ret.length < 4){
ret = "0"+ret;
}
return ret;
};
return (S4(buf[0])+S4(buf[1])+"-"+S4(buf[2])+"-"+S4(buf[3])+"-"+S4(buf[4])+"-"+S4(buf[5])+S4(buf[6])+S4(buf[7]));
}
:
function() {
// Otherwise, just use Math.random
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/105034/how-to-create-a-guid-uuid-in-javascript/2117523#2117523
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.random()*16|0, v = c == 'x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
};
It is on jsbin if you want to test it.

Here's a solution dated Oct. 9, 2011 from a comment by user jed at https://gist.github.com/982883:
UUIDv4 = function b(a){return a?(a^Math.random()*16>>a/4).toString(16):([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g,b)}
This accomplishes the same goal as the current highest-rated answer, but in 50+ fewer bytes by exploiting coercion, recursion, and exponential notation. For those curious how it works, here's the annotated form of an older version of the function:
UUIDv4 =
function b(
a // placeholder
){
return a // if the placeholder was passed, return
? ( // a random number from 0 to 15
a ^ // unless b is 8,
Math.random() // in which case
* 16 // a random number from
>> a/4 // 8 to 11
).toString(16) // in hexadecimal
: ( // or otherwise a concatenated string:
[1e7] + // 10000000 +
-1e3 + // -1000 +
-4e3 + // -4000 +
-8e3 + // -80000000 +
-1e11 // -100000000000,
).replace( // replacing
/[018]/g, // zeroes, ones, and eights with
b // random hex digits
)
}

You can use node-uuid. It provides simple, fast generation of RFC4122 UUIDS.
Features:
Generate RFC4122 version 1 or version 4 UUIDs
Runs in Node.js and browsers.
Cryptographically strong random # generation on supporting platforms.
Small footprint (Want something smaller? Check this out!)
Install Using NPM:
npm install uuid
Or using uuid via a browser:
Download Raw File (uuid v1): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kelektiv/node-uuid/master/v1.js
Download Raw File (uuid v4): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kelektiv/node-uuid/master/v4.js
Want even smaller? Check this out: https://gist.github.com/jed/982883
Usage:
// Generate a v1 UUID (time-based)
const uuidV1 = require('uuid/v1');
uuidV1(); // -> '6c84fb90-12c4-11e1-840d-7b25c5ee775a'
// Generate a v4 UUID (random)
const uuidV4 = require('uuid/v4');
uuidV4(); // -> '110ec58a-a0f2-4ac4-8393-c866d813b8d1'
// Generate a v5 UUID (namespace)
const uuidV5 = require('uuid/v5');
// ... using predefined DNS namespace (for domain names)
uuidV5('hello.example.com', v5.DNS)); // -> 'fdda765f-fc57-5604-a269-52a7df8164ec'
// ... using predefined URL namespace (for, well, URLs)
uuidV5('http://example.com/hello', v5.URL); // -> '3bbcee75-cecc-5b56-8031-b6641c1ed1f1'
// ... using a custom namespace
const MY_NAMESPACE = '(previously generated unique uuid string)';
uuidV5('hello', MY_NAMESPACE); // -> '90123e1c-7512-523e-bb28-76fab9f2f73d'
ECMAScript 2015 (ES6):
import uuid from 'uuid/v4';
const id = uuid();

var uuid = function() {
var buf = new Uint32Array(4);
window.crypto.getRandomValues(buf);
var idx = -1;
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
idx++;
var r = (buf[idx>>3] >> ((idx%8)*4))&15;
var v = c == 'x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
};
This version is based on Briguy37's answer and some bitwise operators to extract nibble sized windows from the buffer.
It should adhere to the RFC Type 4 (random) schema, since I had problems last time parsing non-compliant UUIDs with Java's UUID.

This creates a version 4 UUID (created from pseudo random numbers):
function uuid()
{
var chars = '0123456789abcdef'.split('');
var uuid = [], rnd = Math.random, r;
uuid[8] = uuid[13] = uuid[18] = uuid[23] = '-';
uuid[14] = '4'; // version 4
for (var i = 0; i < 36; i++)
{
if (!uuid[i])
{
r = 0 | rnd()*16;
uuid[i] = chars[(i == 19) ? (r & 0x3) | 0x8 : r & 0xf];
}
}
return uuid.join('');
}
Here is a sample of the UUIDs generated:
682db637-0f31-4847-9cdf-25ba9613a75c
97d19478-3ab2-4aa1-b8cc-a1c3540f54aa
2eed04c9-2692-456d-a0fd-51012f947136

One line solution using Blobs.
window.URL.createObjectURL(new Blob([])).substring(31);
The value at the end (31) depends on the length of the URL.
EDIT:
A more compact and universal solution, as suggested by rinogo:
URL.createObjectURL(new Blob([])).substr(-36);

Simple JavaScript module as a combination of best answers in this question.
var crypto = window.crypto || window.msCrypto || null; // IE11 fix
var Guid = Guid || (function() {
var EMPTY = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000';
var _padLeft = function(paddingString, width, replacementChar) {
return paddingString.length >= width ? paddingString : _padLeft(replacementChar + paddingString, width, replacementChar || ' ');
};
var _s4 = function(number) {
var hexadecimalResult = number.toString(16);
return _padLeft(hexadecimalResult, 4, '0');
};
var _cryptoGuid = function() {
var buffer = new window.Uint16Array(8);
crypto.getRandomValues(buffer);
return [_s4(buffer[0]) + _s4(buffer[1]), _s4(buffer[2]), _s4(buffer[3]), _s4(buffer[4]), _s4(buffer[5]) + _s4(buffer[6]) + _s4(buffer[7])].join('-');
};
var _guid = function() {
var currentDateMilliseconds = new Date().getTime();
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(currentChar) {
var randomChar = (currentDateMilliseconds + Math.random() * 16) % 16 | 0;
currentDateMilliseconds = Math.floor(currentDateMilliseconds / 16);
return (currentChar === 'x' ? randomChar : (randomChar & 0x7 | 0x8)).toString(16);
});
};
var create = function() {
var hasCrypto = crypto != 'undefined' && crypto !== null,
hasRandomValues = typeof(window.crypto.getRandomValues) != 'undefined';
return (hasCrypto && hasRandomValues) ? _cryptoGuid() : _guid();
};
return {
newGuid: create,
empty: EMPTY
};
})();
// DEMO: Create and show GUID
console.log('1. New Guid: ' + Guid.newGuid());
// DEMO: Show empty GUID
console.log('2. Empty Guid: ' + Guid.empty);
Usage:
Guid.newGuid()
"c6c2d12f-d76b-5739-e551-07e6de5b0807"
Guid.empty
"00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"

The version below is an adaptation of broofa's answer, but updated to include a "true" random function that uses crypto libraries where available, and the Alea() function as a fallback.
Math.log2 = Math.log2 || function(n){ return Math.log(n) / Math.log(2); }
Math.trueRandom = (function() {
var crypt = window.crypto || window.msCrypto;
if (crypt && crypt.getRandomValues) {
// If we have a crypto library, use it
var random = function(min, max) {
var rval = 0;
var range = max - min;
if (range < 2) {
return min;
}
var bits_needed = Math.ceil(Math.log2(range));
if (bits_needed > 53) {
throw new Exception("We cannot generate numbers larger than 53 bits.");
}
var bytes_needed = Math.ceil(bits_needed / 8);
var mask = Math.pow(2, bits_needed) - 1;
// 7776 -> (2^13 = 8192) -1 == 8191 or 0x00001111 11111111
// Create byte array and fill with N random numbers
var byteArray = new Uint8Array(bytes_needed);
crypt.getRandomValues(byteArray);
var p = (bytes_needed - 1) * 8;
for(var i = 0; i < bytes_needed; i++ ) {
rval += byteArray[i] * Math.pow(2, p);
p -= 8;
}
// Use & to apply the mask and reduce the number of recursive lookups
rval = rval & mask;
if (rval >= range) {
// Integer out of acceptable range
return random(min, max);
}
// Return an integer that falls within the range
return min + rval;
}
return function() {
var r = random(0, 1000000000) / 1000000000;
return r;
};
} else {
// From https://web.archive.org/web/20120502223108/http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
// Johannes Baagøe <baagoe#baagoe.com>, 2010
function Mash() {
var n = 0xefc8249d;
var mash = function(data) {
data = data.toString();
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
n += data.charCodeAt(i);
var h = 0.02519603282416938 * n;
n = h >>> 0;
h -= n;
h *= n;
n = h >>> 0;
h -= n;
n += h * 0x100000000; // 2^32
}
return (n >>> 0) * 2.3283064365386963e-10; // 2^-32
};
mash.version = 'Mash 0.9';
return mash;
}
// From http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
function Alea() {
return (function(args) {
// Johannes BaagÃ¸e <baagoe#baagoe.com>, 2010
var s0 = 0;
var s1 = 0;
var s2 = 0;
var c = 1;
if (args.length == 0) {
args = [+new Date()];
}
var mash = Mash();
s0 = mash(' ');
s1 = mash(' ');
s2 = mash(' ');
for (var i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
s0 -= mash(args[i]);
if (s0 < 0) {
s0 += 1;
}
s1 -= mash(args[i]);
if (s1 < 0) {
s1 += 1;
}
s2 -= mash(args[i]);
if (s2 < 0) {
s2 += 1;
}
}
mash = null;
var random = function() {
var t = 2091639 * s0 + c * 2.3283064365386963e-10; // 2^-32
s0 = s1;
s1 = s2;
return s2 = t - (c = t | 0);
};
random.uint32 = function() {
return random() * 0x100000000; // 2^32
};
random.fract53 = function() {
return random() +
(random() * 0x200000 | 0) * 1.1102230246251565e-16; // 2^-53
};
random.version = 'Alea 0.9';
random.args = args;
return random;
}(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments)));
};
return Alea();
}
}());
Math.guid = function() {
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.trueRandom() * 16 | 0,
v = c == 'x' ? r : (r & 0x3 | 0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
};

JavaScript project on GitHub - https://github.com/LiosK/UUID.js
UUID.js The RFC-compliant UUID generator for JavaScript.
See RFC 4122 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt.
Features Generates RFC 4122 compliant UUIDs.
Version 4 UUIDs (UUIDs from random numbers) and version 1 UUIDs
(time-based UUIDs) are available.
UUID object allows a variety of access to the UUID including access to
the UUID fields.
Low timestamp resolution of JavaScript is compensated by random
numbers.

// RFC 4122
//
// A UUID is 128 bits long
//
// String representation is five fields of 4, 2, 2, 2, and 6 bytes.
// Fields represented as lowercase, zero-filled, hexadecimal strings, and
// are separated by dash characters
//
// A version 4 UUID is generated by setting all but six bits to randomly
// chosen values
var uuid = [
Math.random().toString(16).slice(2, 10),
Math.random().toString(16).slice(2, 6),
// Set the four most significant bits (bits 12 through 15) of the
// time_hi_and_version field to the 4-bit version number from Section
// 4.1.3
(Math.random() * .0625 /* 0x.1 */ + .25 /* 0x.4 */).toString(16).slice(2, 6),
// Set the two most significant bits (bits 6 and 7) of the
// clock_seq_hi_and_reserved to zero and one, respectively
(Math.random() * .25 /* 0x.4 */ + .5 /* 0x.8 */).toString(16).slice(2, 6),
Math.random().toString(16).slice(2, 14)].join('-');

Added in: v15.6.0, v14.17.0 there is a built-in crypto.randomUUID() function.
import * as crypto from "crypto";
const uuid = crypto.randomUUID();
In the browser, crypto.randomUUID() is currently supported in Chromium 92+ and Firefox 95+.

For those wanting an RFC 4122 version 4 compliant solution with speed considerations (few calls to Math.random()):
var rand = Math.random;
function UUID() {
var nbr, randStr = "";
do {
randStr += (nbr = rand()).toString(16).substr(3, 6);
} while (randStr.length < 30);
return (
randStr.substr(0, 8) + "-" +
randStr.substr(8, 4) + "-4" +
randStr.substr(12, 3) + "-" +
((nbr*4|0)+8).toString(16) + // [89ab]
randStr.substr(15, 3) + "-" +
randStr.substr(18, 12)
);
}
console.log( UUID() );
The above function should have a decent balance between speed and randomness.

I wanted to understand broofa's answer, so I expanded it and added comments:
var uuid = function () {
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(
/[xy]/g,
function (match) {
/*
* Create a random nibble. The two clever bits of this code:
*
* - Bitwise operations will truncate floating point numbers
* - For a bitwise OR of any x, x | 0 = x
*
* So:
*
* Math.random * 16
*
* creates a random floating point number
* between 0 (inclusive) and 16 (exclusive) and
*
* | 0
*
* truncates the floating point number into an integer.
*/
var randomNibble = Math.random() * 16 | 0;
/*
* Resolves the variant field. If the variant field (delineated
* as y in the initial string) is matched, the nibble must
* match the mask (where x is a do-not-care bit):
*
* 10xx
*
* This is achieved by performing the following operations in
* sequence (where x is an intermediate result):
*
* - x & 0x3, which is equivalent to x % 3
* - x | 0x8, which is equivalent to x + 8
*
* This results in a nibble between 8 inclusive and 11 exclusive,
* (or 1000 and 1011 in binary), all of which satisfy the variant
* field mask above.
*/
var nibble = (match == 'y') ?
(randomNibble & 0x3 | 0x8) :
randomNibble;
/*
* Ensure the nibble integer is encoded as base 16 (hexadecimal).
*/
return nibble.toString(16);
}
);
};

ES6 sample
const guid=()=> {
const s4=()=> Math.floor((1 + Math.random()) * 0x10000).toString(16).substring(1);
return `${s4() + s4()}-${s4()}-${s4()}-${s4()}-${s4() + s4() + s4()}`;
}

I adjusted my own UUID/GUID generator with some extras here.
I'm using the following Kybos random number generator to be a bit more cryptographically sound.
Below is my script with the Mash and Kybos methods from baagoe.com excluded.
//UUID/Guid Generator
// use: UUID.create() or UUID.createSequential()
// convenience: UUID.empty, UUID.tryParse(string)
(function(w){
// From http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
// Johannes BaagÃ¸e <baagoe#baagoe.com>, 2010
//function Mash() {...};
// From http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
//function Kybos() {...};
var rnd = Kybos();
//UUID/GUID Implementation from http://frugalcoder.us/post/2012/01/13/javascript-guid-uuid-generator.aspx
var UUID = {
"empty": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"
,"parse": function(input) {
var ret = input.toString().trim().toLowerCase().replace(/^[\s\r\n]+|[\{\}]|[\s\r\n]+$/g, "");
if ((/[a-f0-9]{8}\-[a-f0-9]{4}\-[a-f0-9]{4}\-[a-f0-9]{4}\-[a-f0-9]{12}/).test(ret))
return ret;
else
throw new Error("Unable to parse UUID");
}
,"createSequential": function() {
var ret = new Date().valueOf().toString(16).replace("-","")
for (;ret.length < 12; ret = "0" + ret);
ret = ret.substr(ret.length-12,12); //only least significant part
for (;ret.length < 32;ret += Math.floor(rnd() * 0xffffffff).toString(16));
return [ret.substr(0,8), ret.substr(8,4), "4" + ret.substr(12,3), "89AB"[Math.floor(Math.random()*4)] + ret.substr(16,3), ret.substr(20,12)].join("-");
}
,"create": function() {
var ret = "";
for (;ret.length < 32;ret += Math.floor(rnd() * 0xffffffff).toString(16));
return [ret.substr(0,8), ret.substr(8,4), "4" + ret.substr(12,3), "89AB"[Math.floor(Math.random()*4)] + ret.substr(16,3), ret.substr(20,12)].join("-");
}
,"random": function() {
return rnd();
}
,"tryParse": function(input) {
try {
return UUID.parse(input);
} catch(ex) {
return UUID.empty;
}
}
};
UUID["new"] = UUID.create;
w.UUID = w.Guid = UUID;
}(window || this));

The native URL.createObjectURL is generating an UUID. You can take advantage of this.
function uuid() {
const url = URL.createObjectURL(new Blob())
const [id] = url.toString().split('/').reverse()
URL.revokeObjectURL(url)
return id
}

The better way:
function(
a, b // Placeholders
){
for( // Loop :)
b = a = ''; // b - result , a - numeric variable
a++ < 36; //
b += a*51&52 // If "a" is not 9 or 14 or 19 or 24
? // return a random number or 4
(
a^15 // If "a" is not 15,
? // generate a random number from 0 to 15
8^Math.random() *
(a^20 ? 16 : 4) // unless "a" is 20, in which case a random number from 8 to 11,
:
4 // otherwise 4
).toString(16)
:
'-' // In other cases, (if "a" is 9,14,19,24) insert "-"
);
return b
}
Minimized:
function(a,b){for(b=a='';a++<36;b+=a*51&52?(a^15?8^Math.random()*(a^20?16:4):4).toString(16):'-');return b}

The following is simple code that uses crypto.getRandomValues(a) on supported browsers (Internet Explorer 11+, iOS 7+, Firefox 21+, Chrome, and Android Chrome).
It avoids using Math.random(), because that can cause collisions (for example 20 collisions for 4000 generated UUIDs in a real situation by Muxa).
function uuid() {
function randomDigit() {
if (crypto && crypto.getRandomValues) {
var rands = new Uint8Array(1);
crypto.getRandomValues(rands);
return (rands[0] % 16).toString(16);
} else {
return ((Math.random() * 16) | 0).toString(16);
}
}
var crypto = window.crypto || window.msCrypto;
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-8xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/x/g, randomDigit);
}
Notes:
Optimised for code readability, not speed, so it is suitable for, say, a few hundred UUIDs per second. It generates about 10000 uuid() per second in Chromium on my laptop using http://jsbin.com/fuwigo/1 to measure performance.
It only uses 8 for "y" because that simplifies code readability (y is allowed to be 8, 9, A, or B).

If you just need a random 128 bit string in no particular format, you can use:
function uuid() {
return crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(4)).join('-');
}
Which will return something like 2350143528-4164020887-938913176-2513998651.

I couldn't find any answer that uses a single 16-octet TypedArray and a DataView, so I think the following solution for generating a version 4 UUID per the RFC will stand on its own here:
const uuid4 = () => {
const ho = (n, p) => n.toString(16).padStart(p, 0); /// Return the hexadecimal text representation of number `n`, padded with zeroes to be of length `p`
const data = crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(16)); /// Fill the buffer with random data
data[6] = (data[6] & 0xf) | 0x40; /// Patch the 6th byte to reflect a version 4 UUID
data[8] = (data[8] & 0x3f) | 0x80; /// Patch the 8th byte to reflect a variant 1 UUID (version 4 UUIDs are)
const view = new DataView(data.buffer); /// Create a view backed by a 16-byte buffer
return `${ho(view.getUint32(0), 8)}-${ho(view.getUint16(4), 4)}-${ho(view.getUint16(6), 4)}-${ho(view.getUint16(8), 4)}-${ho(view.getUint32(10), 8)}${ho(view.getUint16(14), 4)}`; /// Compile the canonical textual form from the array data
};
I prefer it because:
it only relies on functions available to the standard ECMAScript platform, where possible -- which is all but one procedure
it only uses a single buffer, minimizing copying of data, which should in theory yield performance advantages
At the time of writing this, getRandomValues is not something implemented for the crypto object in Node.js. However, it has the equivalent randomBytes function which may be used instead.

Just another more readable variant with just two mutations.
function uuid4()
{
function hex (s, b)
{
return s +
(b >>> 4 ).toString (16) + // high nibble
(b & 0b1111).toString (16); // low nibble
}
let r = crypto.getRandomValues (new Uint8Array (16));
r[6] = r[6] >>> 4 | 0b01000000; // Set type 4: 0100
r[8] = r[8] >>> 3 | 0b10000000; // Set variant: 100
return r.slice ( 0, 4).reduce (hex, '' ) +
r.slice ( 4, 6).reduce (hex, '-') +
r.slice ( 6, 8).reduce (hex, '-') +
r.slice ( 8, 10).reduce (hex, '-') +
r.slice (10, 16).reduce (hex, '-');
}

Looping through array elements in javascript generated by random nr generator [duplicate]

How can I generate some unique random numbers between 1 and 100 using JavaScript?

For example: To generate 8 unique random numbers and store them to an array, you can simply do this:
var arr = [];
while(arr.length < 8){
var r = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
if(arr.indexOf(r) === -1) arr.push(r);
}
console.log(arr);

Populate an array with the numbers 1 through 100.
Shuffle it.
Take the first 8 elements of the resulting array.

Modern JS Solution using Set (and average case O(n))
const nums = new Set();
while(nums.size !== 8) {
nums.add(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1);
}
console.log([...nums]);

Another approach is to generate an 100 items array with ascending numbers and sort it randomly. This leads actually to a really short and (in my opinion) simple snippet.
const numbers = Array(100).fill().map((_, index) => index + 1);
numbers.sort(() => Math.random() - 0.5);
console.log(numbers.slice(0, 8));

Generate permutation of 100 numbers and then choose serially.
Use Knuth Shuffle(aka the Fisher-Yates shuffle) Algorithm.
JavaScript:
function fisherYates ( myArray,stop_count ) {
var i = myArray.length;
if ( i == 0 ) return false;
int c = 0;
while ( --i ) {
var j = Math.floor( Math.random() * ( i + 1 ) );
var tempi = myArray[i];
var tempj = myArray[j];
myArray[i] = tempj;
myArray[j] = tempi;
// Edited thanks to Frerich Raabe
c++;
if(c == stop_count)return;
}
}
CODE COPIED FROM LINK.
EDIT:
Improved code:
function fisherYates(myArray,nb_picks)
{
for (i = myArray.length-1; i > 1 ; i--)
{
var r = Math.floor(Math.random()*i);
var t = myArray[i];
myArray[i] = myArray[r];
myArray[r] = t;
}
return myArray.slice(0,nb_picks);
}
Potential problem:
Suppose we have array of 100 numbers {e.g. [1,2,3...100]} and we stop swapping after 8 swaps;
then most of the times array will look like {1,2,3,76,5,6,7,8,...numbers here will be shuffled ...10}.
Because every number will be swapped with probability 1/100 so
prob. of swapping first 8 numbers is 8/100 whereas prob. of swapping other 92 is 92/100.
But if we run algorithm for full array then we are sure (almost)every entry is swapped.
Otherwise we face a question : which 8 numbers to choose?

The above techniques are good if you want to avoid a library, but depending if you would be alright with a library, I would suggest checking out Chance for generating random stuff in JavaScript.
Specifically to solve your question, using Chance it's as easy as:
// One line!
var uniques = chance.unique(chance.natural, 8, {min: 1, max: 100});
// Print it out to the document for this snippet so we can see it in action
document.write(JSON.stringify(uniques));
<script src="http://chancejs.com/chance.min.js"></script>
Disclaimer, as the author of Chance, I am a bit biased ;)

To avoid any long and unreliable shuffles, I'd do the following...
Generate an array that contains the number between 1 and 100, in order.
Generate a random number between 1 and 100
Look up the number at this index in the array and store in your results
Remove the elemnt from the array, making it one shorter
Repeat from step 2, but use 99 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 98 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 97 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 96 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 95 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 94 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 93 as the upper limit of the random number
Voila - no repeated numbers.
I may post some actual code later, if anybody is interested.
Edit: It's probably the competitive streak in me but, having seen the post by #Alsciende, I couldn't resist posting the code that I promised.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</title>
<script type="text/javascript" language="Javascript">
function pick(n, min, max){
var values = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) values.push(i--);
var results = [];
var maxIndex = max;
for(i=1; i <= n; i++){
maxIndex--;
var index = Math.floor(maxIndex * Math.random());
results.push(values[index]);
values[index] = values[maxIndex];
}
return results;
}
function go(){
var running = true;
do{
if(!confirm(pick(8, 1, 100).sort(function(a,b){return a - b;}))){
running = false;
}
}while(running)
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<h1>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</h1>
<p><button onclick="go()">Click me</button> to start generating numbers.</p>
<p>When the numbers appear, click OK to generate another set, or Cancel to stop.</p>
</body>

I would do this:
function randomInt(min, max) {
return Math.round(min + Math.random()*(max-min));
}
var index = {}, numbers = [];
for (var i=0; i<8; ++i) {
var number;
do {
number = randomInt(1, 100);
} while (index.hasOwnProperty("_"+number));
index["_"+number] = true;
numbers.push(number);
}
delete index;

This is a very generic function I have written to generate random unique/non-unique integers for an array. Assume the last parameter to be true in this scenario for this answer.
/* Creates an array of random integers between the range specified
len = length of the array you want to generate
min = min value you require
max = max value you require
unique = whether you want unique or not (assume 'true' for this answer)
*/
function _arrayRandom(len, min, max, unique) {
var len = (len) ? len : 10,
min = (min !== undefined) ? min : 1,
max = (max !== undefined) ? max : 100,
unique = (unique) ? unique : false,
toReturn = [], tempObj = {}, i = 0;
if(unique === true) {
for(; i < len; i++) {
var randomInt = Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min));
if(tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] === undefined) {
tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] = randomInt;
toReturn.push(randomInt);
} else {
i--;
}
}
} else {
for(; i < len; i++) {
toReturn.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min)));
}
}
return toReturn;
}
Here the 'tempObj' is a very useful obj since every random number generated will directly check in this tempObj if that key already exists, if not, then we reduce the i by one since we need 1 extra run since the current random number already exists.
In your case, run the following
_arrayRandom(8, 1, 100, true);
That's all.

Shuffling the numbers from 1 to 100 is the right basic strategy, but if you need only 8 shuffled numbers, there's no need to shuffle all 100 numbers.
I don't know Javascript very well, but I believe it's easy to create an array of 100 nulls quickly. Then, for 8 rounds, you swap the n'th element of the array (n starting at 0) with a randomly selected element from n+1 through 99. Of course, any elements not populated yet mean that the element would really have been the original index plus 1, so that's trivial to factor in. When you're done with the 8 rounds, the first 8 elements of your array will have your 8 shuffled numbers.

var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) === -1){arr.push(randomnumber)}
}
document.write(arr);
shorter than other answers I've seen

Implementing this as a generator makes it pretty nice to work with. Note, this implementation differs from ones that require the entire input array to be shuffled first.
This sample function works lazily, giving you 1 random item per iteration up to N items you ask for. This is nice because if you just want 3 items from a list of 1000, you don't have to touch all 1000 items first.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let ys = xs.slice(0);
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield ys.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// example inputs
let items = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];
let numbers = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
// get 3 random items
for (let i of sample(3) (items))
console.log(i); // f g c
// partial application
const lotto = sample(3);
for (let i of lotto(numbers))
console.log(i); // 3 8 7
// shuffle an array
const shuffle = xs => Array.from(sample (Infinity) (xs))
console.log(shuffle(items)) // [b c g f d e a]
I chose to implement sample in a way that does not mutate the input array, but you could easily argue that a mutating implementation is favourable.
For example, the shuffle function might wish to mutate the original input array. Or you might wish to sample from the same input at various times, updating the input each time.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield xs.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// deal :: [Card] -> [Card]
const deal = xs => Array.from(sample (2) (xs));
// setup a deck of cards (13 in this case)
// cards :: [Card]
let cards = 'A234567890JQK'.split('');
// deal 6 players 2 cards each
// players :: [[Card]]
let players = Array.from(Array(6), $=> deal(cards))
console.log(players);
// [K, J], [6, 0], [2, 8], [Q, 7], [5, 4], [9, A]
// `cards` has been mutated. only 1 card remains in the deck
console.log(cards);
// [3]
sample is no longer a pure function because of the array input mutation, but in certain circumstances (demonstrated above) it might make more sense.
Another reason I chose a generator instead of a function that just returns an array is because you may want to continue sampling until some specific condition.
Perhaps I want the first prime number from a list of 1,000,000 random numbers.
"How many should I sample?" – you don't have to specify
"Do I have to find all the primes first and then select a random prime?" – Nope.
Because we're working with a generator, this task is trivial
const randomPrimeNumber = listOfNumbers => {
for (let x of sample(Infinity) (listOfNumbers)) {
if (isPrime(x))
return x;
}
return NaN;
}
This will continuously sample 1 random number at a time, x, check if it's prime, then return x if it is. If the list of numbers is exhausted before a prime is found, NaN is returned.
Note:
This answer was originally shared on another question that was closed as a duplicate of this one. Because it's very different from the other solutions provided here, I've decided to share it here as well

var numbers = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
let a = true,
n;
while(a) {
n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
a = numbers.includes(n);
}
numbers.push(n);
}
console.log(numbers);

Same permutation algorithm as The Machine Charmer, but with a prototyped implementation. Better suited to large number of picks. Uses js 1.7 destructuring assignment if available.
// swaps elements at index i and j in array this
// swapping is easy on js 1.7 (feature detection)
Array.prototype.swap = (function () {
var i=0, j=1;
try { [i,j]=[j,i]; }
catch (e) {}
if(i) {
return function(i,j) {
[this[i],this[j]] = [this[j],this[i]];
return this;
}
} else {
return function(i,j) {
var temp = this[i];
this[i] = this[j];
this[j] = temp;
return this;
}
}
})();
// shuffles array this
Array.prototype.shuffle = function() {
for(var i=this.length; i>1; i--) {
this.swap(i-1, Math.floor(i*Math.random()));
}
return this;
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.shuffle().slice(0,n);
}
pick(8,1,100);
Edit:
An other proposition, better suited to small number of picks, based on belugabob's answer. To guarantee uniqueness, we remove the picked numbers from the array.
// removes n random elements from array this
// and returns them
Array.prototype.pick = function(n) {
if(!n || !this.length) return [];
var i = Math.floor(this.length*Math.random());
return this.splice(i,1).concat(this.pick(n-1));
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.pick(n);
}
pick(8,1,100);

for arrays with holes like this [,2,,4,,6,7,,]
because my problem was to fill these holes. So I modified it as per my need :)
the following modified solution worked for me :)
var arr = [,2,,4,,6,7,,]; //example
while(arr.length < 9){
var randomnumber=Math.floor(Math.random()*9+1);
var found=false;
for(var i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
if(arr[i]==randomnumber){found=true;break;}
}
if(!found)
for(k=0;k<9;k++)
{if(!arr[k]) //if it's empty !!MODIFICATION
{arr[k]=randomnumber; break;}}
}
alert(arr); //outputs on the screen

The best earlier answer is the answer by sje397. You will get as good random numbers as you can get, as quick as possible.
My solution is very similar to his solution. However, sometimes you want the random numbers in random order, and that is why I decided to post an answer. In addition, I provide a general function.
function selectKOutOfN(k, n) {
if (k>n) throw "k>n";
var selection = [];
var sorted = [];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++) {
var rand = Math.floor(Math.random()*(n - i));
for (var j = 0; j < i; j++) {
if (sorted[j]<=rand)
rand++;
else
break;
}
selection.push(rand);
sorted.splice(j, 0, rand);
}
return selection;
}
alert(selectKOutOfN(8, 100));

Here is my ES6 version I cobbled together. I'm sure it can be a little more consolidated.
function randomArray(i, min, max) {
min = Math.ceil(min);
max = Math.floor(max);
let arr = Array.from({length: i}, () => Math.floor(Math.random()* (max - min)) + min);
return arr.sort();
}
let uniqueItems = [...new Set(randomArray(8, 0, 100))]
console.log(uniqueItems);

How about using object properties as a hash table? This way your best scenario is to only randomize 8 times. It would only be effective if you want a small part of the range of numbers. It's also much less memory intensive than Fisher-Yates because you don't have to allocate space for an array.
var ht={}, i=rands=8;
while ( i>0 || keys(ht).length<rands) ht[Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)]=i--;
alert(keys(ht));
I then found out that Object.keys(obj) is an ECMAScript 5 feature so the above is pretty much useless on the internets right now. Fear not, because I made it ECMAScript 3 compatible by adding a keys function like this.
if (typeof keys == "undefined")
{
var keys = function(obj)
{
props=[];
for (k in ht) if (ht.hasOwnProperty(k)) props.push(k);
return props;
}
}

var bombout=0;
var checkArr=[];
var arr=[];
while(arr.length < 8 && bombout<100){
bombout++;
var randomNumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100);
if(typeof checkArr[randomNumber] == "undefined"){
checkArr[randomNumber]=1;
arr.push(randomNumber);
}
}
// untested - hence bombout

if you need more unique you must generate a array(1..100).
var arr=[];
function generateRandoms(){
for(var i=1;i<=100;i++) arr.push(i);
}
function extractUniqueRandom()
{
if (arr.length==0) generateRandoms();
var randIndex=Math.floor(arr.length*Math.random());
var result=arr[randIndex];
arr.splice(randIndex,1);
return result;
}
function extractUniqueRandomArray(n)
{
var resultArr=[];
for(var i=0;i<n;i++) resultArr.push(extractUniqueRandom());
return resultArr;
}
above code is faster:
extractUniqueRandomArray(50)=>
[2, 79, 38, 59, 63, 42, 52, 22, 78, 50, 39, 77, 1, 88, 40, 23, 48, 84, 91, 49, 4, 54, 93, 36, 100, 82, 62, 41, 89, 12, 24, 31, 86, 92, 64, 75, 70, 61, 67, 98, 76, 80, 56, 90, 83, 44, 43, 47, 7, 53]

Adding another better version of same code (accepted answer) with JavaScript 1.6 indexOf function. Do not need to loop thru whole array every time you are checking the duplicate.
var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
var found=false;
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) > -1){found=true;}
if(!found)arr[arr.length]=randomnumber;
}
Older version of Javascript can still use the version at top
PS: Tried suggesting an update to the wiki but it was rejected. I still think it may be useful for others.

This is my personal solution :
<script>
var i, k;
var numbers = new Array();
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
numbers[0]=k;
for (var j=1;j<8;j++){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
while (i < numbers.length){
if (numbers[i] == k){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
}else {i++;}
}
numbers[j]=k;
}
for (var j=0;j<8;j++){
alert (numbers[j]);
}
</script>
It randomly generates 8 unique array values (between 0 and 7), then displays them using an alert box.

function getUniqueRandomNos() {
var indexedArrayOfRandomNo = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
var randNo = Math.random();
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.push([i, randNo]);
}
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.sort(function (arr1, arr2) {
return arr1[1] - arr2[1]
});
var uniqueRandNoArray = [];
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
uniqueRandNoArray.push(indexedArrayOfRandomNo[i][0]);
}
return uniqueRandNoArray;
}
I think this method is different from methods given in most of the answers, so I thought I might add an answer here (though the question was asked 4 years ago).
We generate 100 random numbers, and tag each of them with numbers from 1 to 100. Then we sort these tagged random numbers, and the tags get shuffled randomly. Alternatively, as needed in this question, one could do away with just finding top 8 of the tagged random numbers. Finding top 8 items is cheaper than sorting the whole array.
One must note here, that the sorting algorithm influences this algorithm. If the sorting algorithm used is stable, there is slight bias in favor of smaller numbers. Ideally, we would want the sorting algorithm to be unstable and not even biased towards stability (or instability) to produce an answer with perfectly uniform probability distribution.

This can handle generating upto 20 digit UNIQUE random number
JS
var generatedNumbers = [];
function generateRandomNumber(precision) { // input --> number precision in integer
if (precision <= 20) {
var randomNum = Math.round(Math.random().toFixed(precision) * Math.pow(10, precision));
if (generatedNumbers.indexOf(randomNum) > -1) {
if (generatedNumbers.length == Math.pow(10, precision))
return "Generated all values with this precision";
return generateRandomNumber(precision);
} else {
generatedNumbers.push(randomNum);
return randomNum;
}
} else
return "Number Precision shoould not exceed 20";
}
generateRandomNumber(1);
jsFiddle

This solution uses the hash which is much more performant O(1) than checking if the resides in the array. It has extra safe checks too. Hope it helps.
function uniqueArray(minRange, maxRange, arrayLength) {
var arrayLength = (arrayLength) ? arrayLength : 10
var minRange = (minRange !== undefined) ? minRange : 1
var maxRange = (maxRange !== undefined) ? maxRange : 100
var numberOfItemsInArray = 0
var hash = {}
var array = []
if ( arrayLength > (maxRange - minRange) ) throw new Error('Cannot generate unique array: Array length too high')
while(numberOfItemsInArray < arrayLength){
// var randomNumber = Math.floor(Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange)
// following line used for performance benefits
var randomNumber = (Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange) << 0
if (!hash[randomNumber]) {
hash[randomNumber] = true
array.push(randomNumber)
numberOfItemsInArray++
}
}
return array
}
document.write(uniqueArray(1, 100, 8))

You can also do it with a one liner like this:
[...((add, set) => add(set, add))((set, add) => set.size < 8 ? add(set.add(Math.floor(Math.random()*100) + 1), add) : set, new Set())]

getRandom (min, max) {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min)) + min
}
getNRandom (min, max, n) {
const numbers = []
if (min > max) {
return new Error('Max is gt min')
}
if (min === max) {
return [min]
}
if ((max - min) >= n) {
while (numbers.length < n) {
let rand = this.getRandom(min, max + 1)
if (numbers.indexOf(rand) === -1) {
numbers.push(rand)
}
}
}
if ((max - min) < n) {
for (let i = min; i <= max; i++) {
numbers.push(i)
}
}
return numbers
}

Using a Set is your fastest option. Here is a generic function for getting a unique random that uses a callback generator. Now it's fast and reusable.
// Get a unique 'anything'
let unique = new Set()
function getUnique(generator) {
let number = generator()
while (!unique.add(number)) {
number = generator()
}
return number;
}
// The generator. Return anything, not just numbers.
const between_1_100 = () => 1 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 100)
// Test it
for (var i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
const aNumber = getUnique(between_1_100)
}
// Dump the 'stored numbers'
console.log(Array.from(unique))

This is a implementation of Fisher Yates/Durstenfeld Shuffle, but without actual creation of a array thus reducing space complexity or memory needed, when the pick size is small compared to the number of elements available.
To pick 8 numbers from 100, it is not necessary to create a array of 100 elements.
Assuming a array is created,
From the end of array(100), get random number(rnd) from 1 to 100
Swap 100 and the random number rnd
Repeat step 1 with array(99)
If a array is not created, A hashMap may be used to remember the actual swapped positions. When the second random number generated is equal to the one of the previously generated numbers, the map provides the current value in that position rather than the actual value.
const getRandom_ = (start, end) => {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (end - start + 1)) + start;
};
const getRealValue_ = (map, rnd) => {
if (map.has(rnd)) {
return getRealValue_(map, map.get(rnd));
} else {
return rnd;
}
};
const getRandomNumbers = (n, start, end) => {
const out = new Map();
while (n--) {
const rnd = getRandom_(start, end--);
out.set(getRealValue_(out, rnd), end + 1);
}
return [...out.keys()];
};
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, 100));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, Math.pow(10, 12)));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(800000, 1, Math.pow(10, 15)));

Here is an example of random 5 numbers taken from a range of 0 to 100 (both 0 and 100 included) with no duplication.
let finals = [];
const count = 5; // Considering 5 numbers
const max = 100;
for(let i = 0; i < max; i++){
const rand = Math.round(Math.random() * max);
!finals.includes(rand) && finals.push(rand)
}
finals = finals.slice(0, count)

Is there a way to create a unique ID using Node.js without additional modules? [duplicate]

How do I create GUIDs (globally-unique identifiers) in JavaScript? The GUID / UUID should be at least 32 characters and should stay in the ASCII range to avoid trouble when passing them around.
I'm not sure what routines are available on all browsers, how "random" and seeded the built-in random number generator is, etc.

[Edited 2021-10-16 to reflect latest best-practices for producing RFC4122-compliant UUIDs]
Most readers here will want to use the uuid module. It is well-tested and supported.
The crypto.randomUUID() function is an emerging standard that is supported in Node.js and an increasing number of browsers. However because new browser APIs are restricted to secure contexts this method is only available to pages served locally (localhost or 127.0.0.1) or over HTTPS. If you're interested in seeing this restriction lifted for crypto.randomUUID() you can follow this GitHub issue.
If neither of those work for you, there is this method (based on the original answer to this question):
function uuidv4() {
return ([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c =>
(c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16)
);
}
console.log(uuidv4());
Note: The use of any UUID generator that relies on Math.random() is strongly discouraged (including snippets featured in previous versions of this answer) for reasons best explained here. TL;DR: solutions based on Math.random() do not provide good uniqueness guarantees.

UUIDs (Universally Unique IDentifier), also known as GUIDs (Globally Unique IDentifier), according to RFC 4122, are identifiers designed to provide certain uniqueness guarantees.
While it is possible to implement RFC-compliant UUIDs in a few lines of JavaScript code (e.g., see #broofa's answer, below) there are several common pitfalls:
Invalid id format (UUIDs must be of the form "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-Mxxx-Nxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx", where x is one of [0-9, a-f] M is one of [1-5], and N is [8, 9, a, or b]
Use of a low-quality source of randomness (such as Math.random)
Thus, developers writing code for production environments are encouraged to use a rigorous, well-maintained implementation such as the uuid module.

I really like how clean Broofa's answer is, but it's unfortunate that poor implementations of Math.random leave the chance for collision.
Here's a similar RFC4122 version 4 compliant solution that solves that issue by offsetting the first 13 hex numbers by a hex portion of the timestamp, and once depleted offsets by a hex portion of the microseconds since pageload. That way, even if Math.random is on the same seed, both clients would have to generate the UUID the exact same number of microseconds since pageload (if high-perfomance time is supported) AND at the exact same millisecond (or 10,000+ years later) to get the same UUID:
function generateUUID() { // Public Domain/MIT
var d = new Date().getTime();//Timestamp
var d2 = ((typeof performance !== 'undefined') && performance.now && (performance.now()*1000)) || 0;//Time in microseconds since page-load or 0 if unsupported
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.random() * 16;//random number between 0 and 16
if(d > 0){//Use timestamp until depleted
r = (d + r)%16 | 0;
d = Math.floor(d/16);
} else {//Use microseconds since page-load if supported
r = (d2 + r)%16 | 0;
d2 = Math.floor(d2/16);
}
return (c === 'x' ? r : (r & 0x3 | 0x8)).toString(16);
});
}
var onClick = function(){
document.getElementById('uuid').textContent = generateUUID();
}
onClick();
#uuid { font-family: monospace; font-size: 1.5em; }
<p id="uuid"></p>
<button id="generateUUID" onclick="onClick();">Generate UUID</button>
Here's a fiddle to test.
Modernized snippet for ES6
const generateUUID = () => {
let
d = new Date().getTime(),
d2 = ((typeof performance !== 'undefined') && performance.now && (performance.now() * 1000)) || 0;
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, c => {
let r = Math.random() * 16;
if (d > 0) {
r = (d + r) % 16 | 0;
d = Math.floor(d / 16);
} else {
r = (d2 + r) % 16 | 0;
d2 = Math.floor(d2 / 16);
}
return (c == 'x' ? r : (r & 0x7 | 0x8)).toString(16);
});
};
const onClick = (e) => document.getElementById('uuid').textContent = generateUUID();
document.getElementById('generateUUID').addEventListener('click', onClick);
onClick();
#uuid { font-family: monospace; font-size: 1.5em; }
<p id="uuid"></p>
<button id="generateUUID">Generate UUID</button>

broofa's answer is pretty slick, indeed - impressively clever, really... RFC4122 compliant, somewhat readable, and compact. Awesome!
But if you're looking at that regular expression, those many replace() callbacks, toString()'s and Math.random() function calls (where he's only using four bits of the result and wasting the rest), you may start to wonder about performance. Indeed, joelpt even decided to toss out an RFC for generic GUID speed with generateQuickGUID.
But, can we get speed and RFC compliance? I say, YES! Can we maintain readability? Well... Not really, but it's easy if you follow along.
But first, my results, compared to broofa, guid (the accepted answer), and the non-rfc-compliant generateQuickGuid:
Desktop Android
broofa: 1617ms 12869ms
e1: 636ms 5778ms
e2: 606ms 4754ms
e3: 364ms 3003ms
e4: 329ms 2015ms
e5: 147ms 1156ms
e6: 146ms 1035ms
e7: 105ms 726ms
guid: 962ms 10762ms
generateQuickGuid: 292ms 2961ms
- Note: 500k iterations, results will vary by browser/CPU.
So by my 6th iteration of optimizations, I beat the most popular answer by over 12 times, the accepted answer by over 9 times, and the fast-non-compliant answer by 2-3 times. And I'm still RFC 4122 compliant.
Interested in how? I've put the full source on http://jsfiddle.net/jcward/7hyaC/3/ and on https://jsben.ch/xczxS
For an explanation, let's start with broofa's code:
function broofa() {
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.random()*16|0, v = c == 'x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
}
console.log(broofa())
So it replaces x with any random hexadecimal digit, y with random data (except forcing the top two bits to 10 per the RFC spec), and the regex doesn't match the - or 4 characters, so he doesn't have to deal with them. Very, very slick.
The first thing to know is that function calls are expensive, as are regular expressions (though he only uses 1, it has 32 callbacks, one for each match, and in each of the 32 callbacks it calls Math.random() and v.toString(16)).
The first step toward performance is to eliminate the RegEx and its callback functions and use a simple loop instead. This means we have to deal with the - and 4 characters whereas broofa did not. Also, note that we can use String Array indexing to keep his slick String template architecture:
function e1() {
var u='',i=0;
while(i++<36) {
var c='xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'[i-1],r=Math.random()*16|0,v=c=='x'?r:(r&0x3|0x8);
u+=(c=='-'||c=='4')?c:v.toString(16)
}
return u;
}
console.log(e1())
Basically, the same inner logic, except we check for - or 4, and using a while loop (instead of replace() callbacks) gets us an almost 3X improvement!
The next step is a small one on the desktop but makes a decent difference on mobile. Let's make fewer Math.random() calls and utilize all those random bits instead of throwing 87% of them away with a random buffer that gets shifted out each iteration. Let's also move that template definition out of the loop, just in case it helps:
function e2() {
var u='',m='xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx',i=0,rb=Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
while(i++<36) {
var c=m[i-1],r=rb&0xf,v=c=='x'?r:(r&0x3|0x8);
u+=(c=='-'||c=='4')?c:v.toString(16);rb=i%8==0?Math.random()*0xffffffff|0:rb>>4
}
return u
}
console.log(e2())
This saves us 10-30% depending on platform. Not bad. But the next big step gets rid of the toString function calls altogether with an optimization classic - the look-up table. A simple 16-element lookup table will perform the job of toString(16) in much less time:
function e3() {
var h='0123456789abcdef';
var k='xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx';
/* same as e4() below */
}
function e4() {
var h=['0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','a','b','c','d','e','f'];
var k=['x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','-','x','x','x','x','-','4','x','x','x','-','y','x','x','x','-','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x'];
var u='',i=0,rb=Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
while(i++<36) {
var c=k[i-1],r=rb&0xf,v=c=='x'?r:(r&0x3|0x8);
u+=(c=='-'||c=='4')?c:h[v];rb=i%8==0?Math.random()*0xffffffff|0:rb>>4
}
return u
}
console.log(e4())
The next optimization is another classic. Since we're only handling four bits of output in each loop iteration, let's cut the number of loops in half and process eight bits in each iteration. This is tricky since we still have to handle the RFC compliant bit positions, but it's not too hard. We then have to make a larger lookup table (16x16, or 256) to store 0x00 - 0xFF, and we build it only once, outside the e5() function.
var lut = []; for (var i=0; i<256; i++) { lut[i] = (i<16?'0':'')+(i).toString(16); }
function e5() {
var k=['x','x','x','x','-','x','x','-','4','x','-','y','x','-','x','x','x','x','x','x'];
var u='',i=0,rb=Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
while(i++<20) {
var c=k[i-1],r=rb&0xff,v=c=='x'?r:(c=='y'?(r&0x3f|0x80):(r&0xf|0x40));
u+=(c=='-')?c:lut[v];rb=i%4==0?Math.random()*0xffffffff|0:rb>>8
}
return u
}
console.log(e5())
I tried an e6() that processes 16-bits at a time, still using the 256-element LUT, and it showed the diminishing returns of optimization. Though it had fewer iterations, the inner logic was complicated by the increased processing, and it performed the same on desktop, and only ~10% faster on mobile.
The final optimization technique to apply - unroll the loop. Since we're looping a fixed number of times, we can technically write this all out by hand. I tried this once with a single random variable, r, that I kept reassigning, and performance tanked. But with four variables assigned random data up front, then using the lookup table, and applying the proper RFC bits, this version smokes them all:
var lut = []; for (var i=0; i<256; i++) { lut[i] = (i<16?'0':'')+(i).toString(16); }
function e7()
{
var d0 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
var d1 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
var d2 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
var d3 = Math.random()*0xffffffff|0;
return lut[d0&0xff]+lut[d0>>8&0xff]+lut[d0>>16&0xff]+lut[d0>>24&0xff]+'-'+
lut[d1&0xff]+lut[d1>>8&0xff]+'-'+lut[d1>>16&0x0f|0x40]+lut[d1>>24&0xff]+'-'+
lut[d2&0x3f|0x80]+lut[d2>>8&0xff]+'-'+lut[d2>>16&0xff]+lut[d2>>24&0xff]+
lut[d3&0xff]+lut[d3>>8&0xff]+lut[d3>>16&0xff]+lut[d3>>24&0xff];
}
console.log(e7())
Modualized: http://jcward.com/UUID.js - UUID.generate()
The funny thing is, generating 16 bytes of random data is the easy part. The whole trick is expressing it in string format with RFC compliance, and it's most tightly accomplished with 16 bytes of random data, an unrolled loop and lookup table.
I hope my logic is correct -- it's very easy to make a mistake in this kind of tedious bit work. But the outputs look good to me. I hope you enjoyed this mad ride through code optimization!
Be advised: my primary goal was to show and teach potential optimization strategies. Other answers cover important topics such as collisions and truly random numbers, which are important for generating good UUIDs.

Use:
let uniqueId = Date.now().toString(36) + Math.random().toString(36).substring(2);
document.getElementById("unique").innerHTML =
Math.random().toString(36).substring(2) + (new Date()).getTime().toString(36);
<div id="unique">
</div>
If IDs are generated more than 1 millisecond apart, they are 100% unique.
If two IDs are generated at shorter intervals, and assuming that the random method is truly random, this would generate IDs that are 99.99999999999999% likely to be globally unique (collision in 1 of 10^15).
You can increase this number by adding more digits, but to generate 100% unique IDs you will need to use a global counter.
If you need RFC compatibility, this formatting will pass as a valid version 4 GUID:
let u = Date.now().toString(16) + Math.random().toString(16) + '0'.repeat(16);
let guid = [u.substr(0,8), u.substr(8,4), '4000-8' + u.substr(13,3), u.substr(16,12)].join('-');
let u = Date.now().toString(16)+Math.random().toString(16)+'0'.repeat(16);
let guid = [u.substr(0,8), u.substr(8,4), '4000-8' + u.substr(13,3), u.substr(16,12)].join('-');
document.getElementById("unique").innerHTML = guid;
<div id="unique">
</div>
The above code follow the intention, but not the letter of the RFC. Among other discrepancies it's a few random digits short. (Add more random digits if you need it) The upside is that this is really fast :)
You can test validity of your GUID here

Here's some code based on RFC 4122, section 4.4 (Algorithms for Creating a UUID from Truly Random or Pseudo-Random Number).
function createUUID() {
// http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt
var s = [];
var hexDigits = "0123456789abcdef";
for (var i = 0; i < 36; i++) {
s[i] = hexDigits.substr(Math.floor(Math.random() * 0x10), 1);
}
s[14] = "4"; // bits 12-15 of the time_hi_and_version field to 0010
s[19] = hexDigits.substr((s[19] & 0x3) | 0x8, 1); // bits 6-7 of the clock_seq_hi_and_reserved to 01
s[8] = s[13] = s[18] = s[23] = "-";
var uuid = s.join("");
return uuid;
}

This is the fastest GUID-like string generator method in the format XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX. It does not generate a standard-compliant GUID.
Ten million executions of this implementation take just 32.5 seconds, which is the fastest I've ever seen in a browser (the only solution without loops/iterations).
The function is as simple as:
/**
* Generates a GUID string.
* #returns {string} The generated GUID.
* #example af8a8416-6e18-a307-bd9c-f2c947bbb3aa
* #author Slavik Meltser.
* #link http://slavik.meltser.info/?p=142
*/
function guid() {
function _p8(s) {
var p = (Math.random().toString(16)+"000000000").substr(2,8);
return s ? "-" + p.substr(0,4) + "-" + p.substr(4,4) : p ;
}
return _p8() + _p8(true) + _p8(true) + _p8();
}
To test the performance, you can run this code:
console.time('t');
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
guid();
};
console.timeEnd('t');
I'm sure most of you will understand what I did there, but maybe there is at least one person that will need an explanation:
The algorithm:
The Math.random() function returns a decimal number between 0 and 1 with 16 digits after the decimal fraction point (for
example 0.4363923368509859).
Then we take this number and convert
it to a string with base 16 (from the example above we'll get
0.6fb7687f).
Math.random().toString(16).
Then we cut off the 0. prefix (0.6fb7687f =>
6fb7687f) and get a string with eight hexadecimal
characters long.
(Math.random().toString(16).substr(2,8).
Sometimes the Math.random() function will return
shorter number (for example 0.4363), due to zeros at the end (from the example above, actually the number is 0.4363000000000000). That's why I'm appending to this string "000000000" (a string with nine zeros) and then cutting it off with substr() function to make it nine characters exactly (filling zeros to the right).
The reason for adding exactly nine zeros is because of the worse case scenario, which is when the Math.random() function will return exactly 0 or 1 (probability of 1/10^16 for each one of them). That's why we needed to add nine zeros to it ("0"+"000000000" or "1"+"000000000"), and then cutting it off from the second index (third character) with a length of eight characters. For the rest of the cases, the addition of zeros will not harm the result because it is cutting it off anyway.
Math.random().toString(16)+"000000000").substr(2,8).
The assembly:
The GUID is in the following format XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX.
I divided the GUID into four pieces, each piece divided into two types (or formats): XXXXXXXX and -XXXX-XXXX.
Now I'm building the GUID using these two types to assemble the GUID with call four pieces, as follows: XXXXXXXX -XXXX-XXXX -XXXX-XXXX XXXXXXXX.
To differ between these two types, I added a flag parameter to a pair creator function _p8(s), the s parameter tells the function whether to add dashes or not.
Eventually we build the GUID with the following chaining: _p8() + _p8(true) + _p8(true) + _p8(), and return it.
Link to this post on my blog
Enjoy! :-)

Here is a totally non-compliant but very performant implementation to generate an ASCII-safe GUID-like unique identifier.
function generateQuickGuid() {
return Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15) +
Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15);
}
Generates 26 [a-z0-9] characters, yielding a UID that is both shorter and more unique than RFC compliant GUIDs. Dashes can be trivially added if human-readability matters.
Here are usage examples and timings for this function and several of this question's other answers. The timing was performed under Chrome m25, 10 million iterations each.
>>> generateQuickGuid()
"nvcjf1hs7tf8yyk4lmlijqkuo9"
"yq6gipxqta4kui8z05tgh9qeel"
"36dh5sec7zdj90sk2rx7pjswi2"
runtime: 32.5s
>>> GUID() // John Millikin
"7a342ca2-e79f-528e-6302-8f901b0b6888"
runtime: 57.8s
>>> regexGuid() // broofa
"396e0c46-09e4-4b19-97db-bd423774a4b3"
runtime: 91.2s
>>> createUUID() // Kevin Hakanson
"403aa1ab-9f70-44ec-bc08-5d5ac56bd8a5"
runtime: 65.9s
>>> UUIDv4() // Jed Schmidt
"f4d7d31f-fa83-431a-b30c-3e6cc37cc6ee"
runtime: 282.4s
>>> Math.uuid() // broofa
"5BD52F55-E68F-40FC-93C2-90EE069CE545"
runtime: 225.8s
>>> Math.uuidFast() // broofa
"6CB97A68-23A2-473E-B75B-11263781BBE6"
runtime: 92.0s
>>> Math.uuidCompact() // broofa
"3d7b7a06-0a67-4b67-825c-e5c43ff8c1e8"
runtime: 229.0s
>>> bitwiseGUID() // jablko
"baeaa2f-7587-4ff1-af23-eeab3e92"
runtime: 79.6s
>>>> betterWayGUID() // Andrea Turri
"383585b0-9753-498d-99c3-416582e9662c"
runtime: 60.0s
>>>> UUID() // John Fowler
"855f997b-4369-4cdb-b7c9-7142ceaf39e8"
runtime: 62.2s
Here is the timing code.
var r;
console.time('t');
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
r = FuncToTest();
};
console.timeEnd('t');

From sagi shkedy's technical blog:
function generateGuid() {
var result, i, j;
result = '';
for(j=0; j<32; j++) {
if( j == 8 || j == 12 || j == 16 || j == 20)
result = result + '-';
i = Math.floor(Math.random()*16).toString(16).toUpperCase();
result = result + i;
}
return result;
}
There are other methods that involve using an ActiveX control, but stay away from these!
I thought it was worth pointing out that no GUID generator can guarantee unique keys (check the Wikipedia article). There is always a chance of collisions. A GUID simply offers a large enough universe of keys to reduce the change of collisions to almost nil.

Here is a combination of the top voted answer, with a workaround for Chrome's collisions:
generateGUID = (typeof(window.crypto) != 'undefined' &&
typeof(window.crypto.getRandomValues) != 'undefined') ?
function() {
// If we have a cryptographically secure PRNG, use that
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6906916/collisions-when-generating-uuids-in-javascript
var buf = new Uint16Array(8);
window.crypto.getRandomValues(buf);
var S4 = function(num) {
var ret = num.toString(16);
while(ret.length < 4){
ret = "0"+ret;
}
return ret;
};
return (S4(buf[0])+S4(buf[1])+"-"+S4(buf[2])+"-"+S4(buf[3])+"-"+S4(buf[4])+"-"+S4(buf[5])+S4(buf[6])+S4(buf[7]));
}
:
function() {
// Otherwise, just use Math.random
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/105034/how-to-create-a-guid-uuid-in-javascript/2117523#2117523
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.random()*16|0, v = c == 'x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
};
It is on jsbin if you want to test it.

Here's a solution dated Oct. 9, 2011 from a comment by user jed at https://gist.github.com/982883:
UUIDv4 = function b(a){return a?(a^Math.random()*16>>a/4).toString(16):([1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g,b)}
This accomplishes the same goal as the current highest-rated answer, but in 50+ fewer bytes by exploiting coercion, recursion, and exponential notation. For those curious how it works, here's the annotated form of an older version of the function:
UUIDv4 =
function b(
a // placeholder
){
return a // if the placeholder was passed, return
? ( // a random number from 0 to 15
a ^ // unless b is 8,
Math.random() // in which case
* 16 // a random number from
>> a/4 // 8 to 11
).toString(16) // in hexadecimal
: ( // or otherwise a concatenated string:
[1e7] + // 10000000 +
-1e3 + // -1000 +
-4e3 + // -4000 +
-8e3 + // -80000000 +
-1e11 // -100000000000,
).replace( // replacing
/[018]/g, // zeroes, ones, and eights with
b // random hex digits
)
}

You can use node-uuid. It provides simple, fast generation of RFC4122 UUIDS.
Features:
Generate RFC4122 version 1 or version 4 UUIDs
Runs in Node.js and browsers.
Cryptographically strong random # generation on supporting platforms.
Small footprint (Want something smaller? Check this out!)
Install Using NPM:
npm install uuid
Or using uuid via a browser:
Download Raw File (uuid v1): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kelektiv/node-uuid/master/v1.js
Download Raw File (uuid v4): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kelektiv/node-uuid/master/v4.js
Want even smaller? Check this out: https://gist.github.com/jed/982883
Usage:
// Generate a v1 UUID (time-based)
const uuidV1 = require('uuid/v1');
uuidV1(); // -> '6c84fb90-12c4-11e1-840d-7b25c5ee775a'
// Generate a v4 UUID (random)
const uuidV4 = require('uuid/v4');
uuidV4(); // -> '110ec58a-a0f2-4ac4-8393-c866d813b8d1'
// Generate a v5 UUID (namespace)
const uuidV5 = require('uuid/v5');
// ... using predefined DNS namespace (for domain names)
uuidV5('hello.example.com', v5.DNS)); // -> 'fdda765f-fc57-5604-a269-52a7df8164ec'
// ... using predefined URL namespace (for, well, URLs)
uuidV5('http://example.com/hello', v5.URL); // -> '3bbcee75-cecc-5b56-8031-b6641c1ed1f1'
// ... using a custom namespace
const MY_NAMESPACE = '(previously generated unique uuid string)';
uuidV5('hello', MY_NAMESPACE); // -> '90123e1c-7512-523e-bb28-76fab9f2f73d'
ECMAScript 2015 (ES6):
import uuid from 'uuid/v4';
const id = uuid();

var uuid = function() {
var buf = new Uint32Array(4);
window.crypto.getRandomValues(buf);
var idx = -1;
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
idx++;
var r = (buf[idx>>3] >> ((idx%8)*4))&15;
var v = c == 'x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
};
This version is based on Briguy37's answer and some bitwise operators to extract nibble sized windows from the buffer.
It should adhere to the RFC Type 4 (random) schema, since I had problems last time parsing non-compliant UUIDs with Java's UUID.

This creates a version 4 UUID (created from pseudo random numbers):
function uuid()
{
var chars = '0123456789abcdef'.split('');
var uuid = [], rnd = Math.random, r;
uuid[8] = uuid[13] = uuid[18] = uuid[23] = '-';
uuid[14] = '4'; // version 4
for (var i = 0; i < 36; i++)
{
if (!uuid[i])
{
r = 0 | rnd()*16;
uuid[i] = chars[(i == 19) ? (r & 0x3) | 0x8 : r & 0xf];
}
}
return uuid.join('');
}
Here is a sample of the UUIDs generated:
682db637-0f31-4847-9cdf-25ba9613a75c
97d19478-3ab2-4aa1-b8cc-a1c3540f54aa
2eed04c9-2692-456d-a0fd-51012f947136

One line solution using Blobs.
window.URL.createObjectURL(new Blob([])).substring(31);
The value at the end (31) depends on the length of the URL.
EDIT:
A more compact and universal solution, as suggested by rinogo:
URL.createObjectURL(new Blob([])).substr(-36);

Simple JavaScript module as a combination of best answers in this question.
var crypto = window.crypto || window.msCrypto || null; // IE11 fix
var Guid = Guid || (function() {
var EMPTY = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000';
var _padLeft = function(paddingString, width, replacementChar) {
return paddingString.length >= width ? paddingString : _padLeft(replacementChar + paddingString, width, replacementChar || ' ');
};
var _s4 = function(number) {
var hexadecimalResult = number.toString(16);
return _padLeft(hexadecimalResult, 4, '0');
};
var _cryptoGuid = function() {
var buffer = new window.Uint16Array(8);
crypto.getRandomValues(buffer);
return [_s4(buffer[0]) + _s4(buffer[1]), _s4(buffer[2]), _s4(buffer[3]), _s4(buffer[4]), _s4(buffer[5]) + _s4(buffer[6]) + _s4(buffer[7])].join('-');
};
var _guid = function() {
var currentDateMilliseconds = new Date().getTime();
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(currentChar) {
var randomChar = (currentDateMilliseconds + Math.random() * 16) % 16 | 0;
currentDateMilliseconds = Math.floor(currentDateMilliseconds / 16);
return (currentChar === 'x' ? randomChar : (randomChar & 0x7 | 0x8)).toString(16);
});
};
var create = function() {
var hasCrypto = crypto != 'undefined' && crypto !== null,
hasRandomValues = typeof(window.crypto.getRandomValues) != 'undefined';
return (hasCrypto && hasRandomValues) ? _cryptoGuid() : _guid();
};
return {
newGuid: create,
empty: EMPTY
};
})();
// DEMO: Create and show GUID
console.log('1. New Guid: ' + Guid.newGuid());
// DEMO: Show empty GUID
console.log('2. Empty Guid: ' + Guid.empty);
Usage:
Guid.newGuid()
"c6c2d12f-d76b-5739-e551-07e6de5b0807"
Guid.empty
"00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"

The version below is an adaptation of broofa's answer, but updated to include a "true" random function that uses crypto libraries where available, and the Alea() function as a fallback.
Math.log2 = Math.log2 || function(n){ return Math.log(n) / Math.log(2); }
Math.trueRandom = (function() {
var crypt = window.crypto || window.msCrypto;
if (crypt && crypt.getRandomValues) {
// If we have a crypto library, use it
var random = function(min, max) {
var rval = 0;
var range = max - min;
if (range < 2) {
return min;
}
var bits_needed = Math.ceil(Math.log2(range));
if (bits_needed > 53) {
throw new Exception("We cannot generate numbers larger than 53 bits.");
}
var bytes_needed = Math.ceil(bits_needed / 8);
var mask = Math.pow(2, bits_needed) - 1;
// 7776 -> (2^13 = 8192) -1 == 8191 or 0x00001111 11111111
// Create byte array and fill with N random numbers
var byteArray = new Uint8Array(bytes_needed);
crypt.getRandomValues(byteArray);
var p = (bytes_needed - 1) * 8;
for(var i = 0; i < bytes_needed; i++ ) {
rval += byteArray[i] * Math.pow(2, p);
p -= 8;
}
// Use & to apply the mask and reduce the number of recursive lookups
rval = rval & mask;
if (rval >= range) {
// Integer out of acceptable range
return random(min, max);
}
// Return an integer that falls within the range
return min + rval;
}
return function() {
var r = random(0, 1000000000) / 1000000000;
return r;
};
} else {
// From https://web.archive.org/web/20120502223108/http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
// Johannes Baagøe <baagoe#baagoe.com>, 2010
function Mash() {
var n = 0xefc8249d;
var mash = function(data) {
data = data.toString();
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
n += data.charCodeAt(i);
var h = 0.02519603282416938 * n;
n = h >>> 0;
h -= n;
h *= n;
n = h >>> 0;
h -= n;
n += h * 0x100000000; // 2^32
}
return (n >>> 0) * 2.3283064365386963e-10; // 2^-32
};
mash.version = 'Mash 0.9';
return mash;
}
// From http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
function Alea() {
return (function(args) {
// Johannes BaagÃ¸e <baagoe#baagoe.com>, 2010
var s0 = 0;
var s1 = 0;
var s2 = 0;
var c = 1;
if (args.length == 0) {
args = [+new Date()];
}
var mash = Mash();
s0 = mash(' ');
s1 = mash(' ');
s2 = mash(' ');
for (var i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
s0 -= mash(args[i]);
if (s0 < 0) {
s0 += 1;
}
s1 -= mash(args[i]);
if (s1 < 0) {
s1 += 1;
}
s2 -= mash(args[i]);
if (s2 < 0) {
s2 += 1;
}
}
mash = null;
var random = function() {
var t = 2091639 * s0 + c * 2.3283064365386963e-10; // 2^-32
s0 = s1;
s1 = s2;
return s2 = t - (c = t | 0);
};
random.uint32 = function() {
return random() * 0x100000000; // 2^32
};
random.fract53 = function() {
return random() +
(random() * 0x200000 | 0) * 1.1102230246251565e-16; // 2^-53
};
random.version = 'Alea 0.9';
random.args = args;
return random;
}(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments)));
};
return Alea();
}
}());
Math.guid = function() {
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) {
var r = Math.trueRandom() * 16 | 0,
v = c == 'x' ? r : (r & 0x3 | 0x8);
return v.toString(16);
});
};

JavaScript project on GitHub - https://github.com/LiosK/UUID.js
UUID.js The RFC-compliant UUID generator for JavaScript.
See RFC 4122 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt.
Features Generates RFC 4122 compliant UUIDs.
Version 4 UUIDs (UUIDs from random numbers) and version 1 UUIDs
(time-based UUIDs) are available.
UUID object allows a variety of access to the UUID including access to
the UUID fields.
Low timestamp resolution of JavaScript is compensated by random
numbers.

// RFC 4122
//
// A UUID is 128 bits long
//
// String representation is five fields of 4, 2, 2, 2, and 6 bytes.
// Fields represented as lowercase, zero-filled, hexadecimal strings, and
// are separated by dash characters
//
// A version 4 UUID is generated by setting all but six bits to randomly
// chosen values
var uuid = [
Math.random().toString(16).slice(2, 10),
Math.random().toString(16).slice(2, 6),
// Set the four most significant bits (bits 12 through 15) of the
// time_hi_and_version field to the 4-bit version number from Section
// 4.1.3
(Math.random() * .0625 /* 0x.1 */ + .25 /* 0x.4 */).toString(16).slice(2, 6),
// Set the two most significant bits (bits 6 and 7) of the
// clock_seq_hi_and_reserved to zero and one, respectively
(Math.random() * .25 /* 0x.4 */ + .5 /* 0x.8 */).toString(16).slice(2, 6),
Math.random().toString(16).slice(2, 14)].join('-');

Added in: v15.6.0, v14.17.0 there is a built-in crypto.randomUUID() function.
import * as crypto from "crypto";
const uuid = crypto.randomUUID();
In the browser, crypto.randomUUID() is currently supported in Chromium 92+ and Firefox 95+.

For those wanting an RFC 4122 version 4 compliant solution with speed considerations (few calls to Math.random()):
var rand = Math.random;
function UUID() {
var nbr, randStr = "";
do {
randStr += (nbr = rand()).toString(16).substr(3, 6);
} while (randStr.length < 30);
return (
randStr.substr(0, 8) + "-" +
randStr.substr(8, 4) + "-4" +
randStr.substr(12, 3) + "-" +
((nbr*4|0)+8).toString(16) + // [89ab]
randStr.substr(15, 3) + "-" +
randStr.substr(18, 12)
);
}
console.log( UUID() );
The above function should have a decent balance between speed and randomness.

I wanted to understand broofa's answer, so I expanded it and added comments:
var uuid = function () {
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(
/[xy]/g,
function (match) {
/*
* Create a random nibble. The two clever bits of this code:
*
* - Bitwise operations will truncate floating point numbers
* - For a bitwise OR of any x, x | 0 = x
*
* So:
*
* Math.random * 16
*
* creates a random floating point number
* between 0 (inclusive) and 16 (exclusive) and
*
* | 0
*
* truncates the floating point number into an integer.
*/
var randomNibble = Math.random() * 16 | 0;
/*
* Resolves the variant field. If the variant field (delineated
* as y in the initial string) is matched, the nibble must
* match the mask (where x is a do-not-care bit):
*
* 10xx
*
* This is achieved by performing the following operations in
* sequence (where x is an intermediate result):
*
* - x & 0x3, which is equivalent to x % 3
* - x | 0x8, which is equivalent to x + 8
*
* This results in a nibble between 8 inclusive and 11 exclusive,
* (or 1000 and 1011 in binary), all of which satisfy the variant
* field mask above.
*/
var nibble = (match == 'y') ?
(randomNibble & 0x3 | 0x8) :
randomNibble;
/*
* Ensure the nibble integer is encoded as base 16 (hexadecimal).
*/
return nibble.toString(16);
}
);
};

ES6 sample
const guid=()=> {
const s4=()=> Math.floor((1 + Math.random()) * 0x10000).toString(16).substring(1);
return `${s4() + s4()}-${s4()}-${s4()}-${s4()}-${s4() + s4() + s4()}`;
}

I adjusted my own UUID/GUID generator with some extras here.
I'm using the following Kybos random number generator to be a bit more cryptographically sound.
Below is my script with the Mash and Kybos methods from baagoe.com excluded.
//UUID/Guid Generator
// use: UUID.create() or UUID.createSequential()
// convenience: UUID.empty, UUID.tryParse(string)
(function(w){
// From http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
// Johannes BaagÃ¸e <baagoe#baagoe.com>, 2010
//function Mash() {...};
// From http://baagoe.com/en/RandomMusings/javascript/
//function Kybos() {...};
var rnd = Kybos();
//UUID/GUID Implementation from http://frugalcoder.us/post/2012/01/13/javascript-guid-uuid-generator.aspx
var UUID = {
"empty": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"
,"parse": function(input) {
var ret = input.toString().trim().toLowerCase().replace(/^[\s\r\n]+|[\{\}]|[\s\r\n]+$/g, "");
if ((/[a-f0-9]{8}\-[a-f0-9]{4}\-[a-f0-9]{4}\-[a-f0-9]{4}\-[a-f0-9]{12}/).test(ret))
return ret;
else
throw new Error("Unable to parse UUID");
}
,"createSequential": function() {
var ret = new Date().valueOf().toString(16).replace("-","")
for (;ret.length < 12; ret = "0" + ret);
ret = ret.substr(ret.length-12,12); //only least significant part
for (;ret.length < 32;ret += Math.floor(rnd() * 0xffffffff).toString(16));
return [ret.substr(0,8), ret.substr(8,4), "4" + ret.substr(12,3), "89AB"[Math.floor(Math.random()*4)] + ret.substr(16,3), ret.substr(20,12)].join("-");
}
,"create": function() {
var ret = "";
for (;ret.length < 32;ret += Math.floor(rnd() * 0xffffffff).toString(16));
return [ret.substr(0,8), ret.substr(8,4), "4" + ret.substr(12,3), "89AB"[Math.floor(Math.random()*4)] + ret.substr(16,3), ret.substr(20,12)].join("-");
}
,"random": function() {
return rnd();
}
,"tryParse": function(input) {
try {
return UUID.parse(input);
} catch(ex) {
return UUID.empty;
}
}
};
UUID["new"] = UUID.create;
w.UUID = w.Guid = UUID;
}(window || this));

The native URL.createObjectURL is generating an UUID. You can take advantage of this.
function uuid() {
const url = URL.createObjectURL(new Blob())
const [id] = url.toString().split('/').reverse()
URL.revokeObjectURL(url)
return id
}

The better way:
function(
a, b // Placeholders
){
for( // Loop :)
b = a = ''; // b - result , a - numeric variable
a++ < 36; //
b += a*51&52 // If "a" is not 9 or 14 or 19 or 24
? // return a random number or 4
(
a^15 // If "a" is not 15,
? // generate a random number from 0 to 15
8^Math.random() *
(a^20 ? 16 : 4) // unless "a" is 20, in which case a random number from 8 to 11,
:
4 // otherwise 4
).toString(16)
:
'-' // In other cases, (if "a" is 9,14,19,24) insert "-"
);
return b
}
Minimized:
function(a,b){for(b=a='';a++<36;b+=a*51&52?(a^15?8^Math.random()*(a^20?16:4):4).toString(16):'-');return b}

The following is simple code that uses crypto.getRandomValues(a) on supported browsers (Internet Explorer 11+, iOS 7+, Firefox 21+, Chrome, and Android Chrome).
It avoids using Math.random(), because that can cause collisions (for example 20 collisions for 4000 generated UUIDs in a real situation by Muxa).
function uuid() {
function randomDigit() {
if (crypto && crypto.getRandomValues) {
var rands = new Uint8Array(1);
crypto.getRandomValues(rands);
return (rands[0] % 16).toString(16);
} else {
return ((Math.random() * 16) | 0).toString(16);
}
}
var crypto = window.crypto || window.msCrypto;
return 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-8xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.replace(/x/g, randomDigit);
}
Notes:
Optimised for code readability, not speed, so it is suitable for, say, a few hundred UUIDs per second. It generates about 10000 uuid() per second in Chromium on my laptop using http://jsbin.com/fuwigo/1 to measure performance.
It only uses 8 for "y" because that simplifies code readability (y is allowed to be 8, 9, A, or B).

If you just need a random 128 bit string in no particular format, you can use:
function uuid() {
return crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(4)).join('-');
}
Which will return something like 2350143528-4164020887-938913176-2513998651.

I couldn't find any answer that uses a single 16-octet TypedArray and a DataView, so I think the following solution for generating a version 4 UUID per the RFC will stand on its own here:
const uuid4 = () => {
const ho = (n, p) => n.toString(16).padStart(p, 0); /// Return the hexadecimal text representation of number `n`, padded with zeroes to be of length `p`
const data = crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(16)); /// Fill the buffer with random data
data[6] = (data[6] & 0xf) | 0x40; /// Patch the 6th byte to reflect a version 4 UUID
data[8] = (data[8] & 0x3f) | 0x80; /// Patch the 8th byte to reflect a variant 1 UUID (version 4 UUIDs are)
const view = new DataView(data.buffer); /// Create a view backed by a 16-byte buffer
return `${ho(view.getUint32(0), 8)}-${ho(view.getUint16(4), 4)}-${ho(view.getUint16(6), 4)}-${ho(view.getUint16(8), 4)}-${ho(view.getUint32(10), 8)}${ho(view.getUint16(14), 4)}`; /// Compile the canonical textual form from the array data
};
I prefer it because:
it only relies on functions available to the standard ECMAScript platform, where possible -- which is all but one procedure
it only uses a single buffer, minimizing copying of data, which should in theory yield performance advantages
At the time of writing this, getRandomValues is not something implemented for the crypto object in Node.js. However, it has the equivalent randomBytes function which may be used instead.

Just another more readable variant with just two mutations.
function uuid4()
{
function hex (s, b)
{
return s +
(b >>> 4 ).toString (16) + // high nibble
(b & 0b1111).toString (16); // low nibble
}
let r = crypto.getRandomValues (new Uint8Array (16));
r[6] = r[6] >>> 4 | 0b01000000; // Set type 4: 0100
r[8] = r[8] >>> 3 | 0b10000000; // Set variant: 100
return r.slice ( 0, 4).reduce (hex, '' ) +
r.slice ( 4, 6).reduce (hex, '-') +
r.slice ( 6, 8).reduce (hex, '-') +
r.slice ( 8, 10).reduce (hex, '-') +
r.slice (10, 16).reduce (hex, '-');
}

Need help making an approximation of Euler's constant

It's very close but just one number off. If you can change anything here to make it better it'd be appreciated. I'm comparing my number with Math.E to see if I'm close.
var e = (function() {
var factorial = function(n) {
var a = 1;
for (var i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
a = a * i;
}
return a;
};
for (var k = 0, b = []; k < 18; k++) {
b.push(b.length ? b[k - 1] + 1 / factorial(k) : 1 / factorial(k));
}
return b[b.length - 1];
})();
document.write(e);document.write('<br />'+ Math.E);
My number: 2.7182818284590455
Math.E: 2.718281828459045

Work from higher numbers to lower numbers to minimize cancellation:
var e = 1;
for(var k = 17; k > 0; --k) {
e = 1 + e/k;
}
return e;
Evaluating the Taylor polynomial by Horner's rule even avoids the factorial and allows you to use more terms (won't make a difference beyond 17, though).

As far as I can see your number is the same as Math.E and even has a better precision.
2.7182818284590455
2.718281828459045
What is the problem after all?

With javascript, you cannot calculate e this way due to the level of precision of javascript computations. See http://www.javascripter.net/faq/accuracy.htm for more info.
To demonstrate this problem please take a look at the following fiddle which calculates e with n starting at 50000000, incrementing n by 1 every 10 milliseconds:
http://jsfiddle.net/q8xRs/1/

I like using integer values to approximate real ones.
Possible approximations of e in order of increasing accuracy are:
11/4
87/32
23225/8544
3442297523731/1266350489376
That last one is fairly accurate, equating to:
2.7182818284590452213260834432
which doesn't diverge from wikipedia's value till the 18th:
2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995
So there's that, if you're interested.

Generate unique random numbers between 1 and 100

How can I generate some unique random numbers between 1 and 100 using JavaScript?

For example: To generate 8 unique random numbers and store them to an array, you can simply do this:
var arr = [];
while(arr.length < 8){
var r = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
if(arr.indexOf(r) === -1) arr.push(r);
}
console.log(arr);

Populate an array with the numbers 1 through 100.
Shuffle it.
Take the first 8 elements of the resulting array.

Modern JS Solution using Set (and average case O(n))
const nums = new Set();
while(nums.size !== 8) {
nums.add(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1);
}
console.log([...nums]);

Another approach is to generate an 100 items array with ascending numbers and sort it randomly. This leads actually to a really short and (in my opinion) simple snippet.
const numbers = Array(100).fill().map((_, index) => index + 1);
numbers.sort(() => Math.random() - 0.5);
console.log(numbers.slice(0, 8));

Generate permutation of 100 numbers and then choose serially.
Use Knuth Shuffle(aka the Fisher-Yates shuffle) Algorithm.
JavaScript:
function fisherYates ( myArray,stop_count ) {
var i = myArray.length;
if ( i == 0 ) return false;
int c = 0;
while ( --i ) {
var j = Math.floor( Math.random() * ( i + 1 ) );
var tempi = myArray[i];
var tempj = myArray[j];
myArray[i] = tempj;
myArray[j] = tempi;
// Edited thanks to Frerich Raabe
c++;
if(c == stop_count)return;
}
}
CODE COPIED FROM LINK.
EDIT:
Improved code:
function fisherYates(myArray,nb_picks)
{
for (i = myArray.length-1; i > 1 ; i--)
{
var r = Math.floor(Math.random()*i);
var t = myArray[i];
myArray[i] = myArray[r];
myArray[r] = t;
}
return myArray.slice(0,nb_picks);
}
Potential problem:
Suppose we have array of 100 numbers {e.g. [1,2,3...100]} and we stop swapping after 8 swaps;
then most of the times array will look like {1,2,3,76,5,6,7,8,...numbers here will be shuffled ...10}.
Because every number will be swapped with probability 1/100 so
prob. of swapping first 8 numbers is 8/100 whereas prob. of swapping other 92 is 92/100.
But if we run algorithm for full array then we are sure (almost)every entry is swapped.
Otherwise we face a question : which 8 numbers to choose?

The above techniques are good if you want to avoid a library, but depending if you would be alright with a library, I would suggest checking out Chance for generating random stuff in JavaScript.
Specifically to solve your question, using Chance it's as easy as:
// One line!
var uniques = chance.unique(chance.natural, 8, {min: 1, max: 100});
// Print it out to the document for this snippet so we can see it in action
document.write(JSON.stringify(uniques));
<script src="http://chancejs.com/chance.min.js"></script>
Disclaimer, as the author of Chance, I am a bit biased ;)

To avoid any long and unreliable shuffles, I'd do the following...
Generate an array that contains the number between 1 and 100, in order.
Generate a random number between 1 and 100
Look up the number at this index in the array and store in your results
Remove the elemnt from the array, making it one shorter
Repeat from step 2, but use 99 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 98 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 97 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 96 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 95 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 94 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 93 as the upper limit of the random number
Voila - no repeated numbers.
I may post some actual code later, if anybody is interested.
Edit: It's probably the competitive streak in me but, having seen the post by #Alsciende, I couldn't resist posting the code that I promised.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</title>
<script type="text/javascript" language="Javascript">
function pick(n, min, max){
var values = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) values.push(i--);
var results = [];
var maxIndex = max;
for(i=1; i <= n; i++){
maxIndex--;
var index = Math.floor(maxIndex * Math.random());
results.push(values[index]);
values[index] = values[maxIndex];
}
return results;
}
function go(){
var running = true;
do{
if(!confirm(pick(8, 1, 100).sort(function(a,b){return a - b;}))){
running = false;
}
}while(running)
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<h1>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</h1>
<p><button onclick="go()">Click me</button> to start generating numbers.</p>
<p>When the numbers appear, click OK to generate another set, or Cancel to stop.</p>
</body>

I would do this:
function randomInt(min, max) {
return Math.round(min + Math.random()*(max-min));
}
var index = {}, numbers = [];
for (var i=0; i<8; ++i) {
var number;
do {
number = randomInt(1, 100);
} while (index.hasOwnProperty("_"+number));
index["_"+number] = true;
numbers.push(number);
}
delete index;

This is a very generic function I have written to generate random unique/non-unique integers for an array. Assume the last parameter to be true in this scenario for this answer.
/* Creates an array of random integers between the range specified
len = length of the array you want to generate
min = min value you require
max = max value you require
unique = whether you want unique or not (assume 'true' for this answer)
*/
function _arrayRandom(len, min, max, unique) {
var len = (len) ? len : 10,
min = (min !== undefined) ? min : 1,
max = (max !== undefined) ? max : 100,
unique = (unique) ? unique : false,
toReturn = [], tempObj = {}, i = 0;
if(unique === true) {
for(; i < len; i++) {
var randomInt = Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min));
if(tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] === undefined) {
tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] = randomInt;
toReturn.push(randomInt);
} else {
i--;
}
}
} else {
for(; i < len; i++) {
toReturn.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min)));
}
}
return toReturn;
}
Here the 'tempObj' is a very useful obj since every random number generated will directly check in this tempObj if that key already exists, if not, then we reduce the i by one since we need 1 extra run since the current random number already exists.
In your case, run the following
_arrayRandom(8, 1, 100, true);
That's all.

Shuffling the numbers from 1 to 100 is the right basic strategy, but if you need only 8 shuffled numbers, there's no need to shuffle all 100 numbers.
I don't know Javascript very well, but I believe it's easy to create an array of 100 nulls quickly. Then, for 8 rounds, you swap the n'th element of the array (n starting at 0) with a randomly selected element from n+1 through 99. Of course, any elements not populated yet mean that the element would really have been the original index plus 1, so that's trivial to factor in. When you're done with the 8 rounds, the first 8 elements of your array will have your 8 shuffled numbers.

var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) === -1){arr.push(randomnumber)}
}
document.write(arr);
shorter than other answers I've seen

Implementing this as a generator makes it pretty nice to work with. Note, this implementation differs from ones that require the entire input array to be shuffled first.
This sample function works lazily, giving you 1 random item per iteration up to N items you ask for. This is nice because if you just want 3 items from a list of 1000, you don't have to touch all 1000 items first.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let ys = xs.slice(0);
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield ys.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// example inputs
let items = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];
let numbers = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
// get 3 random items
for (let i of sample(3) (items))
console.log(i); // f g c
// partial application
const lotto = sample(3);
for (let i of lotto(numbers))
console.log(i); // 3 8 7
// shuffle an array
const shuffle = xs => Array.from(sample (Infinity) (xs))
console.log(shuffle(items)) // [b c g f d e a]
I chose to implement sample in a way that does not mutate the input array, but you could easily argue that a mutating implementation is favourable.
For example, the shuffle function might wish to mutate the original input array. Or you might wish to sample from the same input at various times, updating the input each time.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield xs.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// deal :: [Card] -> [Card]
const deal = xs => Array.from(sample (2) (xs));
// setup a deck of cards (13 in this case)
// cards :: [Card]
let cards = 'A234567890JQK'.split('');
// deal 6 players 2 cards each
// players :: [[Card]]
let players = Array.from(Array(6), $=> deal(cards))
console.log(players);
// [K, J], [6, 0], [2, 8], [Q, 7], [5, 4], [9, A]
// `cards` has been mutated. only 1 card remains in the deck
console.log(cards);
// [3]
sample is no longer a pure function because of the array input mutation, but in certain circumstances (demonstrated above) it might make more sense.
Another reason I chose a generator instead of a function that just returns an array is because you may want to continue sampling until some specific condition.
Perhaps I want the first prime number from a list of 1,000,000 random numbers.
"How many should I sample?" – you don't have to specify
"Do I have to find all the primes first and then select a random prime?" – Nope.
Because we're working with a generator, this task is trivial
const randomPrimeNumber = listOfNumbers => {
for (let x of sample(Infinity) (listOfNumbers)) {
if (isPrime(x))
return x;
}
return NaN;
}
This will continuously sample 1 random number at a time, x, check if it's prime, then return x if it is. If the list of numbers is exhausted before a prime is found, NaN is returned.
Note:
This answer was originally shared on another question that was closed as a duplicate of this one. Because it's very different from the other solutions provided here, I've decided to share it here as well

var numbers = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
let a = true,
n;
while(a) {
n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
a = numbers.includes(n);
}
numbers.push(n);
}
console.log(numbers);

Same permutation algorithm as The Machine Charmer, but with a prototyped implementation. Better suited to large number of picks. Uses js 1.7 destructuring assignment if available.
// swaps elements at index i and j in array this
// swapping is easy on js 1.7 (feature detection)
Array.prototype.swap = (function () {
var i=0, j=1;
try { [i,j]=[j,i]; }
catch (e) {}
if(i) {
return function(i,j) {
[this[i],this[j]] = [this[j],this[i]];
return this;
}
} else {
return function(i,j) {
var temp = this[i];
this[i] = this[j];
this[j] = temp;
return this;
}
}
})();
// shuffles array this
Array.prototype.shuffle = function() {
for(var i=this.length; i>1; i--) {
this.swap(i-1, Math.floor(i*Math.random()));
}
return this;
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.shuffle().slice(0,n);
}
pick(8,1,100);
Edit:
An other proposition, better suited to small number of picks, based on belugabob's answer. To guarantee uniqueness, we remove the picked numbers from the array.
// removes n random elements from array this
// and returns them
Array.prototype.pick = function(n) {
if(!n || !this.length) return [];
var i = Math.floor(this.length*Math.random());
return this.splice(i,1).concat(this.pick(n-1));
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.pick(n);
}
pick(8,1,100);

for arrays with holes like this [,2,,4,,6,7,,]
because my problem was to fill these holes. So I modified it as per my need :)
the following modified solution worked for me :)
var arr = [,2,,4,,6,7,,]; //example
while(arr.length < 9){
var randomnumber=Math.floor(Math.random()*9+1);
var found=false;
for(var i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
if(arr[i]==randomnumber){found=true;break;}
}
if(!found)
for(k=0;k<9;k++)
{if(!arr[k]) //if it's empty !!MODIFICATION
{arr[k]=randomnumber; break;}}
}
alert(arr); //outputs on the screen

The best earlier answer is the answer by sje397. You will get as good random numbers as you can get, as quick as possible.
My solution is very similar to his solution. However, sometimes you want the random numbers in random order, and that is why I decided to post an answer. In addition, I provide a general function.
function selectKOutOfN(k, n) {
if (k>n) throw "k>n";
var selection = [];
var sorted = [];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++) {
var rand = Math.floor(Math.random()*(n - i));
for (var j = 0; j < i; j++) {
if (sorted[j]<=rand)
rand++;
else
break;
}
selection.push(rand);
sorted.splice(j, 0, rand);
}
return selection;
}
alert(selectKOutOfN(8, 100));

Here is my ES6 version I cobbled together. I'm sure it can be a little more consolidated.
function randomArray(i, min, max) {
min = Math.ceil(min);
max = Math.floor(max);
let arr = Array.from({length: i}, () => Math.floor(Math.random()* (max - min)) + min);
return arr.sort();
}
let uniqueItems = [...new Set(randomArray(8, 0, 100))]
console.log(uniqueItems);

How about using object properties as a hash table? This way your best scenario is to only randomize 8 times. It would only be effective if you want a small part of the range of numbers. It's also much less memory intensive than Fisher-Yates because you don't have to allocate space for an array.
var ht={}, i=rands=8;
while ( i>0 || keys(ht).length<rands) ht[Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)]=i--;
alert(keys(ht));
I then found out that Object.keys(obj) is an ECMAScript 5 feature so the above is pretty much useless on the internets right now. Fear not, because I made it ECMAScript 3 compatible by adding a keys function like this.
if (typeof keys == "undefined")
{
var keys = function(obj)
{
props=[];
for (k in ht) if (ht.hasOwnProperty(k)) props.push(k);
return props;
}
}

var bombout=0;
var checkArr=[];
var arr=[];
while(arr.length < 8 && bombout<100){
bombout++;
var randomNumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100);
if(typeof checkArr[randomNumber] == "undefined"){
checkArr[randomNumber]=1;
arr.push(randomNumber);
}
}
// untested - hence bombout

if you need more unique you must generate a array(1..100).
var arr=[];
function generateRandoms(){
for(var i=1;i<=100;i++) arr.push(i);
}
function extractUniqueRandom()
{
if (arr.length==0) generateRandoms();
var randIndex=Math.floor(arr.length*Math.random());
var result=arr[randIndex];
arr.splice(randIndex,1);
return result;
}
function extractUniqueRandomArray(n)
{
var resultArr=[];
for(var i=0;i<n;i++) resultArr.push(extractUniqueRandom());
return resultArr;
}
above code is faster:
extractUniqueRandomArray(50)=>
[2, 79, 38, 59, 63, 42, 52, 22, 78, 50, 39, 77, 1, 88, 40, 23, 48, 84, 91, 49, 4, 54, 93, 36, 100, 82, 62, 41, 89, 12, 24, 31, 86, 92, 64, 75, 70, 61, 67, 98, 76, 80, 56, 90, 83, 44, 43, 47, 7, 53]

Adding another better version of same code (accepted answer) with JavaScript 1.6 indexOf function. Do not need to loop thru whole array every time you are checking the duplicate.
var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
var found=false;
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) > -1){found=true;}
if(!found)arr[arr.length]=randomnumber;
}
Older version of Javascript can still use the version at top
PS: Tried suggesting an update to the wiki but it was rejected. I still think it may be useful for others.

This is my personal solution :
<script>
var i, k;
var numbers = new Array();
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
numbers[0]=k;
for (var j=1;j<8;j++){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
while (i < numbers.length){
if (numbers[i] == k){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
}else {i++;}
}
numbers[j]=k;
}
for (var j=0;j<8;j++){
alert (numbers[j]);
}
</script>
It randomly generates 8 unique array values (between 0 and 7), then displays them using an alert box.

function getUniqueRandomNos() {
var indexedArrayOfRandomNo = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
var randNo = Math.random();
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.push([i, randNo]);
}
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.sort(function (arr1, arr2) {
return arr1[1] - arr2[1]
});
var uniqueRandNoArray = [];
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
uniqueRandNoArray.push(indexedArrayOfRandomNo[i][0]);
}
return uniqueRandNoArray;
}
I think this method is different from methods given in most of the answers, so I thought I might add an answer here (though the question was asked 4 years ago).
We generate 100 random numbers, and tag each of them with numbers from 1 to 100. Then we sort these tagged random numbers, and the tags get shuffled randomly. Alternatively, as needed in this question, one could do away with just finding top 8 of the tagged random numbers. Finding top 8 items is cheaper than sorting the whole array.
One must note here, that the sorting algorithm influences this algorithm. If the sorting algorithm used is stable, there is slight bias in favor of smaller numbers. Ideally, we would want the sorting algorithm to be unstable and not even biased towards stability (or instability) to produce an answer with perfectly uniform probability distribution.

This can handle generating upto 20 digit UNIQUE random number
JS
var generatedNumbers = [];
function generateRandomNumber(precision) { // input --> number precision in integer
if (precision <= 20) {
var randomNum = Math.round(Math.random().toFixed(precision) * Math.pow(10, precision));
if (generatedNumbers.indexOf(randomNum) > -1) {
if (generatedNumbers.length == Math.pow(10, precision))
return "Generated all values with this precision";
return generateRandomNumber(precision);
} else {
generatedNumbers.push(randomNum);
return randomNum;
}
} else
return "Number Precision shoould not exceed 20";
}
generateRandomNumber(1);
jsFiddle

This solution uses the hash which is much more performant O(1) than checking if the resides in the array. It has extra safe checks too. Hope it helps.
function uniqueArray(minRange, maxRange, arrayLength) {
var arrayLength = (arrayLength) ? arrayLength : 10
var minRange = (minRange !== undefined) ? minRange : 1
var maxRange = (maxRange !== undefined) ? maxRange : 100
var numberOfItemsInArray = 0
var hash = {}
var array = []
if ( arrayLength > (maxRange - minRange) ) throw new Error('Cannot generate unique array: Array length too high')
while(numberOfItemsInArray < arrayLength){
// var randomNumber = Math.floor(Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange)
// following line used for performance benefits
var randomNumber = (Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange) << 0
if (!hash[randomNumber]) {
hash[randomNumber] = true
array.push(randomNumber)
numberOfItemsInArray++
}
}
return array
}
document.write(uniqueArray(1, 100, 8))

You can also do it with a one liner like this:
[...((add, set) => add(set, add))((set, add) => set.size < 8 ? add(set.add(Math.floor(Math.random()*100) + 1), add) : set, new Set())]

getRandom (min, max) {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min)) + min
}
getNRandom (min, max, n) {
const numbers = []
if (min > max) {
return new Error('Max is gt min')
}
if (min === max) {
return [min]
}
if ((max - min) >= n) {
while (numbers.length < n) {
let rand = this.getRandom(min, max + 1)
if (numbers.indexOf(rand) === -1) {
numbers.push(rand)
}
}
}
if ((max - min) < n) {
for (let i = min; i <= max; i++) {
numbers.push(i)
}
}
return numbers
}

Using a Set is your fastest option. Here is a generic function for getting a unique random that uses a callback generator. Now it's fast and reusable.
// Get a unique 'anything'
let unique = new Set()
function getUnique(generator) {
let number = generator()
while (!unique.add(number)) {
number = generator()
}
return number;
}
// The generator. Return anything, not just numbers.
const between_1_100 = () => 1 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 100)
// Test it
for (var i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
const aNumber = getUnique(between_1_100)
}
// Dump the 'stored numbers'
console.log(Array.from(unique))

This is a implementation of Fisher Yates/Durstenfeld Shuffle, but without actual creation of a array thus reducing space complexity or memory needed, when the pick size is small compared to the number of elements available.
To pick 8 numbers from 100, it is not necessary to create a array of 100 elements.
Assuming a array is created,
From the end of array(100), get random number(rnd) from 1 to 100
Swap 100 and the random number rnd
Repeat step 1 with array(99)
If a array is not created, A hashMap may be used to remember the actual swapped positions. When the second random number generated is equal to the one of the previously generated numbers, the map provides the current value in that position rather than the actual value.
const getRandom_ = (start, end) => {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (end - start + 1)) + start;
};
const getRealValue_ = (map, rnd) => {
if (map.has(rnd)) {
return getRealValue_(map, map.get(rnd));
} else {
return rnd;
}
};
const getRandomNumbers = (n, start, end) => {
const out = new Map();
while (n--) {
const rnd = getRandom_(start, end--);
out.set(getRealValue_(out, rnd), end + 1);
}
return [...out.keys()];
};
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, 100));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, Math.pow(10, 12)));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(800000, 1, Math.pow(10, 15)));

Here is an example of random 5 numbers taken from a range of 0 to 100 (both 0 and 100 included) with no duplication.
let finals = [];
const count = 5; // Considering 5 numbers
const max = 100;
for(let i = 0; i < max; i++){
const rand = Math.round(Math.random() * max);
!finals.includes(rand) && finals.push(rand)
}
finals = finals.slice(0, count)

We Keep Coding

JavaScript is the programming language of the Web.

Counting Sheep (Beatrix Trotter) Javascript - javascript

Related

How to generate trillions of random IDs quickly [duplicate]

Looping through array elements in javascript generated by random nr generator [duplicate]

Is there a way to create a unique ID using Node.js without additional modules? [duplicate]

Need help making an approximation of Euler's constant

Generate unique random numbers between 1 and 100

Categories

Resources