Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
alpha-numeric string
(version: 0)
Check if a string contains only alpha-numeric characters.
Comparing performance of:
Regex vs charCodeAt
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
var string = "isAlphaNumeric2021"
Script Preparation code:
var string = "isAlphaNumeric2021"
Tests:
Regex
/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)
charCodeAt
function isAlphaNumeric(str) { for (let i = 0; i < str.length; i++) { let code = str.charCodeAt(i) if (!(code > 47 && code < 58) && // numeric (0-9) !(code > 64 && code < 91) && // upper alpha (A-Z) !(code > 96 && code < 123)) { // lower alpha (a-z) return false } } return true } isAlphaNumeric(string)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Regex
charCodeAt
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Measuring performance is crucial in software development, and JavaScript microbenchmarks like MeasureThat.net help identify bottlenecks. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases: 1. **Regex**: The script checks if the input string `string` contains only alphanumeric characters using a regular expression (`/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)`). 2. **charCodeAt**: The script defines an `isAlphaNumeric` function that iterates over each character of the input string and checks its ASCII code to determine if it's alphanumeric (numeric, upper case letter, or lower case letter). **Options Compared** The two test cases compare different approaches: * **Regex vs. charCodeAt**: Both methods check for alphanumeric characters in the input string. * **JavaScript Built-in Methods vs. Custom Implementation**: The `charCodeAt` approach implements a custom function to check for alphanumeric characters, whereas the Regex approach uses a built-in JavaScript method (`test()`). **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** ### charCodeAt Approach Pros: * More readable code with clear logic. * Can be optimized for specific use cases. Cons: * May have performance implications due to string iteration. * Requires manual ASCII code checking, which can be error-prone. ### Regex Approach Pros: * Built-in JavaScript method simplifies code and reduces errors. * Often faster than custom implementation due to optimized regex engines. Cons: * Code readability may suffer due to the use of complex regular expressions. * May not be suitable for all types of alphanumeric checks (e.g., Unicode characters). **Library Usage** None **Special JS Features/Syntax** None mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net supports a wide range of JavaScript features and syntax versions. **Alternatives** Some alternative approaches to measure performance or check for alphanumeric strings include: * Using a dedicated library like `isAlphanumeric` from the `lodash` package. * Implementing a custom function using a different algorithm (e.g., Unicode code point checking). * Utilizing Web Assembly (WASM) or other low-level optimization techniques. Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the best solution depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.
Related benchmarks:
To Formatted Number
Regex vs split/join checking alphanumeric big number
Normalize digits
isNaN vs regex test for stringify number check
String to number, parseInt, +, or * 1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?