Benchmark: test regex vs loop

Tests:

regex
const regex = /(00|11|22|33|44|55|66|77|88|99)/; let num = 3298; num = num + 1; let aux = (num).toString(); while (regex.test(aux)) { num += 1; aux = num.toString(); }
loop
let num = 3298; const consecutiveChars = function(num) { const arr = num.toString().split(''); for (let idx = 0; idx < arr.length - 1; idx++) { if (arr[idx] == arr[idx + 1]) return true; } return false; } num = num + 1; while (consecutiveChars(num)) { num++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 148 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	474708.9 Ops/sec
loop	247430.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a regular expression (`regex`) and a loop-based approach, in this case, a function that checks for consecutive characters in a string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Regex Approach**: The first test case uses a regular expression to check if each character in the `aux` string is equal to the next one.
2. **Loop-Based Approach**: The second test case uses a loop-based approach, where a function checks if each pair of consecutive characters in the `aux` string are equal.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Regex Approach**:
	+ Pros: Simple and concise code, can be easily adapted to different use cases.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution.
* **Loop-Based Approach**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for large inputs since it avoids the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution. Additionally, it's easier to optimize loop-based approaches for performance.
	+ Cons: More complex code compared to the regex approach.

**Library and Its Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the `test()` function used in the regex approach is a part of the built-in JavaScript String prototype, which provides a convenient way to perform string matching with regular expressions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features, such as:

* **Arrow functions**: Used in the `consecutiveChars` function.
* **Template literals**: Used to create the `aux` variable.
* **Loops**: Used in both test cases.

However, there are no special ES6+ features like classes, generators, or async/await used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be tested in a similar benchmark include:

1. Using a custom loop instead of the built-in `for` loop.
2. Using a different data structure, such as an array, to store consecutive characters.
3. Using a more efficient algorithm for checking consecutive characters, such as using a single pass through the string.

These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases to accurately reflect their performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

test regex vs loop (version: 0)

test regex vs loop

Comparing performance of: regex vs loop

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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