Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
nested regex or not with both functions
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
rooted vs nested
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
regex = /([^" "]+)/g rooted = str => regex.test(str) nested = str => /([^" "]+)/g.test(str)
Tests:
rooted
rooted(' ')
nested
nested(' ')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
rooted
nested
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and its options. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches to create regular expressions (regex). The goal is to compare the performance of these approaches in terms of speed and efficiency. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code contains the following lines: ```javascript regex = /([^\" \"]+)/g; rooted = str => regex.test(str); nested = str => /([^\" \"]+)/g.test(str); ``` These lines define two functions: 1. `rooted`: This function uses a standalone regex object (`/([^\" \"]+)/g`) and calls its `test()` method on the input string. 2. `nested`: This function creates a new regex object on each call using `/([^\" \"]+)/g` and then calls its `test()` method on the input string. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **Rooted**: The `rooted` approach uses a standalone regex object that is created only once, and then reused for all iterations. 2. **Nested**: The `nested` approach creates a new regex object on each iteration using `/([^\" \"]+)/g`, which can lead to performance overhead due to the repeated creation of objects. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Rooted**: * Pros: Reuses the same regex object for all iterations, reducing object creation overhead. * Cons: May incur a one-time penalty when creating the initial regex object. 2. **Nested**: * Pros: Allows for easy modification of the regex pattern without affecting previous iterations. * Cons: Repeatedly creates new regex objects on each iteration, which can lead to performance overhead. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no libraries or special JavaScript features being tested in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** The benchmark is likely focused on comparing the performance of these two approaches in terms of speed and efficiency. However, other factors like memory usage, cache behavior, and code readability may also be worth considering when implementing similar benchmarks. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or variations on this benchmark, some possible directions could include: 1. Comparing different regex optimization techniques (e.g., lazy matching, caching). 2. Testing other JavaScript engines or browsers to see if the performance difference is consistent across platforms. 3. Examining the impact of larger input sizes or more complex regex patterns on performance. These alternatives would likely require modifications to the benchmark script and may involve additional considerations like handling edge cases and optimizing for specific use cases.
Related benchmarks:
nested regex or not
regex vs trim test
RegEx.matchAll vs includes no match
regex v. slice
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?