Exactly! The task description doesn't imply that using RegExp naively (i. e. taking "searchText" as a valid regular expression) should work. Still, those RegExp-based solutions are being upvoted, but hey, that's life... ;)

You mean why it hasn't got a lower rating, don't you? I guess it's because one needs to cope with the broadly advertised "inappropriate wording" of the kata... ;)

Hi, nice and challenging kata :) There is only one small issue:

Its description states that columns 'visits_count' and 'when_happened' should be returned, although it requires them to be returned in reverse order. I know that the order is not explicitly specified, but still, they should be listed in the expected order to make a ninja happy... :)

Yeah, superb that someone made a benchmark on this :) I would say that the results confirm the idea that just simply filling in the 1-s "in a spiral" should be faster than doing some more complex operations with lists etc. (as can be seen in some other solutions). Moreover, for me, this solution is maybe the most readable / comprehensible... :)

Agreed -> https://www.codewars.com/kata/sudoku-solution-validator/discuss/javascript
This one seems older according to the comments' timestamps. (It's a shame that Codewars doesn't display some "date of creation" right at a kata, or does it?)

I'm sorry, but who could upvote this interesting, but still quite crazy (the boxes function!), solution as a best practice? :D

Well, yes, impressive etc. :) But I guess the performance level requirement for passing this kata forces nearly everyone to program such a solution in the end... :)

Nice solution, although this is rather "Clever" than a "Best Practice" IMHO: I wouldn't use this in production because of the e.* construct...

Well done. But one should note that this relies on alphabetical order of the categories (bad, good, ok; different from what can be seen in the expected output) AND that all categories will be available for each product.

If one of these preconditions is not met, one should better use the 2-parameters variant of the crosstab() function to get the correct data. Am I right?

PS: Just replacing "*" with the expected columns named explicitly should be enough for the 1st precondition.