Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
regex 0001
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
REGEX_1 vs REGEX_2
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var REGEX_1 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([\w\s]{1,})/; var REGEX_2 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\"{0,1}([\w\s]+)/;
Tests:
REGEX_1
REGEX_1.test("cpf=123")
REGEX_2
REGEX_2.test("cpf=123")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
REGEX_1
REGEX_2
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
gemma2:9b
, generated one year ago):
This benchmark compares two regular expressions (REGEX_1 and REGEX_2) used to match the string "cpf=123". **Options Compared:** * **REGEX_1:** `/\"{0,1}cpf\"{0,1}[:=]\"{0,1}([\\w\\s]{1,})/` * **REGEX_2:** `/\"{0,1}cpf\"{0,1}[:=]\\\"{0,1}([\\w\\s]+)/` Both regexes aim to match the pattern "cpf" followed by an optional colon or equals sign and then capture one or more word characters or spaces. The main difference lies in the character classes used within the capturing group. REGEX_1 uses `[\\w\\s]` while REGEX_2 uses `[\\w\\s]+`. **Pros/Cons:** * **REGEX_1:** `[\\w\\s]` allows for any combination of word characters (letters, numbers, underscore) and whitespace. This might be more flexible depending on the context but could potentially capture unintended matches. * **REGEX_2:** `[\\w\\s]+` requires capturing at least one word character or space. This ensures a minimum length for the captured group and might be more specific to the desired pattern. **Consideration:** The choice between these regexes depends on the specific requirements of your application. If you need to capture any combination of word characters and whitespace, REGEX_1 might be suitable. However, if you require a minimum length for the captured group, REGEX_2 would be more appropriate. **Alternatives:** * **String methods:** For simpler patterns, using built-in string methods like `indexOf`, `substring`, or `includes` could be faster and more readable than regular expressions. * **Libraries:** Libraries like RegExr or other dedicated regex testing tools can help visualize the pattern matching process and fine-tune your regexes for better performance and accuracy. Remember that microbenchmarks provide insights into specific code snippets but might not always reflect real-world performance due to factors like garbage collection, caching, and application context.
Related benchmarks:
regex 0001 + 1
regex 0001 + 2
regex 0001 + 4
regex 0001 + 5
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?