Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
regexp vs split 5
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
regexp vs split
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var fullAppName = 'vendor.appname@10.9.8'
Tests:
regexp
const splitAppName = /[^@.]+/g const [vendor] = splitAppName.exec(fullAppName) || [null] const [name] = splitAppName.exec(fullAppName) || [null] const [major] = splitAppName.exec(fullAppName) || [null]
split
const [fullName, version] = fullAppName.split('@', 2) const [major] = version.split('.', 1) const [vendor, name] = fullName.split('.', 2)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
regexp
split
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to extract information from a full application name string: regular expressions (RegExp) and the `split()` method. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **RegExp**: This test case uses a RegExp object (`splitAppName`) to extract three components from the full application name string: * Vendor name * Application name * Major version number The regular expression is designed to match one or more non-`@` and `.` characters, followed by an optional `@` character, and then captures the vendor name, application name, and major version number. 2. **Split**: This test case uses the `split()` method to extract the same information from the full application name string: * Vendor name * Application name * Major version number The `split()` method is used twice, first on the `@` character to separate the vendor and application names, and then on the `.` character to separate the major version number. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: 1. **RegExp**: * Pros: + More flexible and powerful for complex string matching + Can be used for other purposes beyond extracting specific information * Cons: + Slower than the `split()` method due to the overhead of creating a RegExp object and executing the pattern match + Requires more code to define the regular expression pattern 2. **Split**: * Pros: + Faster than the RegExp approach due to the simplicity of the `split()` method + Less code required * Cons: + Less flexible than RegExp for complex string matching + Assumes a specific format for the input string (e.g., `vendor@application-version`) **Other Considerations** The benchmark also takes into account various factors that can affect performance, such as: 1. **Browser and Device**: The benchmark uses data from real-world browsers and devices to ensure that the results are representative of different scenarios. 2. **Operating System**: The benchmark uses data from a specific operating system (Mac OS X 10.14.0) to account for potential differences in performance. **Libraries and Special JS Features** In this benchmark, there is no explicit use of external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the `split()` method. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript environments may have additional capabilities or built-in functions that could be used to improve performance or simplify the extraction process. If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing the performance of this benchmark, I can provide more guidance on other methods and techniques.
Related benchmarks:
regex vs split/pop
Regex vs split/join 2
String split using regex vs string v3
Split vs regexp
string.split(RegExp); vs string.split(string);
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?