Benchmark: Regexp comparisions

Script Preparation code:

var RE_CON_CONST = new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$')
var RE_LIT_CONST = /^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/

Tests:

const constructed regex
RE_CON_CONST.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')
const literal regex
RE_LIT_CONST.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')
inline literal regex
/^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')
inline contructed regex
new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$').test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
const constructed regex
const literal regex
inline literal regex
inline contructed regex

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different approaches for creating and testing regular expressions (regex) in JavaScript.

**Options being compared**

There are four options being compared:

1. **const constructed regex**: Using the `RegExp` constructor with a literal string argument, like `new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$')`.
2. **const literal regex**: Using a literal string as the first argument to `RegExp`, like `^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$`.
3. **inline literal regex**: Using a forward slash (`/`) followed by the pattern and options, like `/^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/`.
4. **inline constructed regex**: Creating a new `RegExp` instance using the constructor with a literal string argument, like `new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$')`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **const constructed regex**:
	* Pros: Can be useful for creating complex patterns or capturing groups.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating a new `RegExp` instance on every iteration.
2. **const literal regex**:
	* Pros: Can result in faster performance since the pattern is cached.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for dynamic patterns or capturing groups.
3. **inline literal regex**:
	* Pros: Fastest approach, as the pattern is immediately available and doesn't require caching.
	* Cons: May lead to harder-to-read code, especially for complex patterns.
4. **inline constructed regex**:
	* Pros: Can be useful for creating dynamic patterns or capturing groups.
	* Cons: Still incurs some overhead due to the creation of a new `RegExp` instance.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the `RegExp` constructor and its methods are part of the built-in JavaScript API.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned explicitly, but keep in mind that this benchmark focuses on regex performance optimization, which may involve using features like `let` or `const` for variable declarations, or using `import` statements if you're using ES modules.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to create your own benchmarking tool, you might consider including additional approaches, such as:

* Using a library like `regex-optimize` or `regex-performance` for optimized regex creation and matching.
* Comparing the performance of different regex flavors (e.g., PCRE, Unicode regex).
* Incorporating modern JavaScript features like async/await or Promises to simulate real-world use cases.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good starting point for comparing the performance of different approaches to creating and testing regular expressions in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Regexp comparisions (version: 0)

Comparing inline and const regex's

Comparing performance of: const constructed regex vs const literal regex vs inline literal regex vs inline contructed regex

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

const constructed regex

const literal regex

inline literal regex

inline contructed regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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