Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
path regex bis
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
precompiled vs literal
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var precomp = new RegExp(/[^A-Za-z0-9.-]+|(?=[-A-Za-z])|(?<=[A-Za-z])|(?<=\.\d+)(?=\.)/g); var test = "M 0 0 L 10 10 L10 10 L20 20 M 0 0 L 10 10 L10 10 L20 20 M 0 0 L 10 10 L10 10 L20 20 M 0 0 L 10 10 L10 10 L20 20";
Tests:
precompiled
test.split(precomp);
literal
test.split(/[^A-Za-z0-9.-]+|(?=[-A-Za-z])|(?<=[A-Za-z])|(?<=\.\d+)(?=\.)/g);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
precompiled
literal
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'll break down the provided benchmark information and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two approaches: 1. **Precompilation**: This approach involves compiling a regular expression pattern (`precomp`) into a more efficient form before executing it. The idea is to reuse the compiled pattern, reducing the overhead associated with creating and updating the regex object. 2. **Literal Regex**: This approach uses the original regular expression pattern directly, without precompilation. **Precompiled Option:** The `precomp` variable represents a compiled version of the regular expression pattern: ```javascript var precomp = new RegExp(/[^A-Za-z0-9.-]+|(?=[-A-Za-z])|(?<=[A-Za-z])|(?<=\\.\\d+)(?=\\.)/g); ``` This regex pattern is designed to match sequences that are not valid characters (e.g., spaces, punctuation, and certain special characters). The `new RegExp` constructor creates a new regular expression object, which can be reused across multiple executions. Pros: * Reduced overhead associated with creating and updating the regex object * Potential performance improvement due to reusing the compiled pattern Cons: * May introduce additional memory usage or garbage collection overhead due to the creation of the compiled regex object * Might not work as expected if the original regex pattern changes significantly between runs **Literal Regex Option:** The `test.split(/[^A-Za-z0-9.-]+|(?=[-A-Za-z])|(?<=[A-Za-z])|(?<=\\.\\d+)(?=\\.)/g);` expression uses the original regular expression pattern directly. Pros: * No additional memory usage or garbage collection overhead * Simple and straightforward approach Cons: * Potential performance penalty due to repeated creation and update of the regex object **Library Used:** The `RegExp` constructor is a built-in JavaScript library that provides support for regular expressions. It's used to create and manipulate regular expression objects. **Special JS Feature/Syntax:** There isn't any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the two different approaches to using regular expressions, specifically precompilation versus literal usage. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives for this type of benchmark could involve: * Using a different approach to compile and execute regular expressions (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` instead of `RegExp`) * Testing performance with different types of input data or character sets * Comparing the performance of precompiled vs. literal regex patterns against other languages or implementations Keep in mind that this is just one example of a benchmark, and there are many ways to approach similar tests depending on the specific requirements and goals of the project.
Related benchmarks:
path regex
path regex bis 2
Various regex testing patterns
pippoepluto
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?