Benchmark: hostname - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var host1 = "www.google.com";
var host2 = "www.google.co.uk";
var host3 = "google.com";

Tests:

orig1
var hostname = host1.match(/^(?:www\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
orig2
var hostname = host2.match(/^(?:www\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
orig3
var hostname = host3.match(/^(?:www\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
new1
var hostname = host1.match(/([^.]+)\.(?:co\.)?[^.]+$/)[1];
new2
var hostname = host2.match(/([^.]+)\.(?:co\.)?[^.]+$/)[1];
new3
var hostname = host3.match(/([^.]+)\.(?:co\.)?[^.]+$/)[1];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
orig1
orig2
orig3
new1
new2
new3

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition provides a JavaScript script that extracts a hostname from a URL using regular expressions. The script is divided into two parts:

1. Script Preparation Code:
   ```javascript
var host1 = "www.google.com";
var host2 = "www.google.co.uk";
var host3 = "google.com";
```
   These lines define three URLs as variables.

2. Html Preparation Code:
   There is no HTML preparation code provided, indicating that the benchmark does not involve any HTML parsing or rendering.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are six test cases, each defining a different regular expression pattern to extract the hostname from the URL:

1. `orig1`, `orig2`, and `orig3`:
   ```javascript
var hostname = host1.match(/^(?:www\\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
```
   These patterns match the hostname at the start of the URL (`^`) using an optional `www.` prefix (`(?:www\\.)?`). The `[^\.]` part matches any character except a dot, and the `[]` around `[^\.]` creates a capturing group to extract the matched value. The `[1]` index references the first (and only) captured group.

2. `new1`, `new2`, and `new3`:
   ```javascript
var hostname = host1.match(/([^.]+)\\.(?:co\\.)?[^.]+$/)[1];
```
   These patterns match the hostname without an optional `www.` prefix (`(?:co\\.)?`). The `\(` around `[^\+]` creates a capturing group to extract the matched value.

**Library Usage:**

There is no explicit library usage in the benchmark definition, but it does utilize built-in JavaScript features like regular expressions and string matching.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used beyond basic string manipulation and regular expression pattern matching.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

The two approaches compared here are:

1. **Orig** patterns (`orig1`, `orig2`, `orig3`):
   * Pros:
     - Simple to understand and implement.
     - Effective for certain URL formats.
   * Cons:
     - May not handle all possible URL formats correctly.
     - Less efficient due to unnecessary character matching.

2. **New** patterns (`new1`, `new2`, `new3`):
   * Pros:
     - More robust in handling different URL formats.
     - Efficient by avoiding unnecessary character matching.
   * Cons:
     - May require more complex regular expression pattern creation.
     - Less straightforward to understand and implement.

**Other Considerations:**

*   Performance: The `new` patterns are generally faster due to the optimized way of extracting the hostname, while the `orig` patterns may cause more overhead from unnecessary character matching.
*   Robustness: The `new` patterns are more robust in handling different URL formats, but may not cover all possible edge cases.

Related benchmarks:

hostname (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: orig1 vs orig2 vs orig3 vs new1 vs new2 vs new3

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

orig1

orig2

orig3

new1

new2

new3

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):