Benchmark: Simple Regex 3 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const urls = [
"/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/composition",
"/v1/tron/instruments/Otro/composition",
"/v1/tron/instruments/Serabe/composition",
"/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/compositon",
];

const results = ['PVCM', 'Otro', 'Serabe', false];

Tests:

String handling
const urls = [ "/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/Otro/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/Serabe/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/compositon", ]; const results = ['PVCM', 'Otro', 'Serabe', false]; const extractSegment = (url) => { if (!url.startsWith('/v1/tron/instruments/')) { return false; } if (!url.endsWith('/composition')) { return false; } const fragment = url.substring('/v1/tron/instruments/'.length, url.length - '/composition'.length); if (fragment.includes('/')) { return false; } return fragment; } urls.forEach((url, idx) => { const fragment = extractSegment(url); if (fragment !== results[idx]) { throw `Mismatch #{fragment} #{results[idx]}`; } });
Simple Regex
const urls = [ "/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/Otro/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/Serabe/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/compositon", ]; const results = ['PVCM', 'Otro', 'Serabe', false]; const regexp = new RegExp('\/v1\/tron\/instruments\/([^/]+)\/composition', "i") urls.forEach((url, idx) => { const match = url.match(regexp); if (typeof results[idx] === 'string') { if (match[1] !== results[idx]) { throw `Wrong #{match[1]} #{results[idx]}`; } } else if (results[idx] === false) { if (match !== null) { throw `Wrong, #{match} found`; } } });
Anchored Regex
const urls = [ "/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/Otro/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/Serabe/composition", "/v1/tron/instruments/PVCM/compositon", ]; const results = ['PVCM', 'Otro', 'Serabe', false]; const regexp = new RegExp('^\/v1\/tron\/instruments\/([^/]+)\/composition$', "i") urls.forEach((url, idx) => { const match = url.match(regexp); if (typeof results[idx] === 'string') { if (match[1] !== results[idx]) { throw `Wrong #{match[1]} #{results[idx]}`; } } else if (results[idx] === false) { if (match !== null) { throw `Wrong, #{match} found`; } } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String handling
Simple Regex
Anchored Regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript in handling strings, specifically regular expressions. The benchmark consists of three test cases: `String Handling`, `Simple Regex`, and `Anchored Regex`. Each test case uses a similar approach but with different variations.

**Test Case 1: String Handling**

This test case uses a custom function `extractSegment` to extract a segment from a URL string. The function checks if the extracted segment matches a predefined list of expected values. The benchmark verifies that each extracted segment corresponds to an expected value in the list.

The pros of this approach are:

* It allows for fine-grained control over the input data and the verification logic.
* It is specific to the use case being tested.

The cons are:

* It may be slower due to the custom function implementation.
* The benchmark requires a large number of iterations to produce reliable results.

**Test Case 2: Simple Regex**

This test case uses a regular expression to match a URL pattern. The regex pattern matches the `^` character followed by `/v1/tron/instruments/` and then captures one or more non-slash characters (`[^/]`). The benchmark verifies that the matched string corresponds to an expected value in the list.

The pros of this approach are:

* It is generally faster than a custom implementation.
* It can handle large inputs efficiently.

The cons are:

* The regex pattern may be less specific than a custom implementation.
* The benchmark requires careful tuning of the regex pattern to produce reliable results.

**Test Case 3: Anchored Regex**

This test case uses an anchored regular expression to match a URL pattern. The regex pattern matches the `^` character followed by `/v1/tron/instruments/`, captures one or more non-slash characters (`[^/]`), and then checks if the matched string is equal to a specific value.

The pros of this approach are:

* It provides better specificity than a simple regex.
* The benchmark can be optimized for performance.

The cons are:

* The regex pattern may be less flexible than a custom implementation.
* The benchmark requires careful tuning of the regex pattern and expected values.

**Library: None**

There is no explicit library used in these test cases. However, Safari's JavaScript engine might have some internal optimizations or features that could impact the performance of the benchmarks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax: None**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or WebAssembly.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to these approaches include:

1. Using a third-party library like RegEx or regex-test for regular expression matching.
2. Implementing a custom string extraction function using JavaScript's built-in string manipulation methods (e.g., `split()`, `substring()`).
3. Using a benchmarking framework like Benchmark.js or Benchmark-Test to simplify the benchmarking process.

It is worth noting that these alternatives might not provide significant performance improvements over the current implementation and may introduce additional complexity.

Related benchmarks:

Simple Regex 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String handling vs Simple Regex vs Anchored Regex

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String handling

Simple Regex

Anchored Regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):