Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test To fixed vs regex
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Regex vs toFixed
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Regex
var x = 12.030303; x.toString().match(/^-?\d+(?:\.\d{0,2})?/)[0];
toFixed
var x = 12.030303; x.toFixed(2);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Regex
toFixed
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.84 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 99 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
Regex
13440631.0 Ops/sec
toFixed
5468258.5 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to formatting a fixed-point number: using regular expressions (`Regex`) versus the `toFixed()` method. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Regex**: Using regular expressions to extract the integer part from a floating-point number. In this case, the pattern `/^-?\\d+(?:\\.\\d{0,2})?/` is used to match the desired format. 2. **toFixed()**: Using the `toFixed()` method to explicitly format the number with two decimal places. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Regex**: * Pros: Can be flexible and powerful for complex formatting tasks. * Cons: May have a higher overhead due to the complexity of regular expressions, which can lead to slower performance. * Additional considerations: Regular expressions can be prone to errors if not used correctly, and may not handle all edge cases. 2. **toFixed()**: * Pros: Generally faster and more efficient than using regex, as it's a built-in method optimized for this specific task. * Cons: May not provide the same level of flexibility as regex, limiting its use to simple formatting tasks. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in the benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that `toFixed()` is a standard JavaScript method provided by most browsers, whereas regular expressions may require additional libraries or configuration. **Special JavaScript Features/Syntax** This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript features like arrow functions. The focus is on the simple formatting task at hand. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternatives to this approach, consider: 1. Using a dedicated library like `lodash` or `moment.js` for complex formatting tasks. 2. Utilizing browser-specific APIs, such as `Number.prototype.toExponential()` or `Number.prototype.toPrecision()`, which may provide faster performance for certain use cases. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The benchmark preparation code is minimal, as it only includes the JavaScript code being tested: ```javascript var x = 12.030303; x.toString().match(/^-?\\d+(?:\\.\\d{0,2})?/)[0]; ``` or ```javascript var x = 12.030303; x.toFixed(2); ``` **Latest Benchmark Result** The latest benchmark results show the performance of each approach: | Test Name | ExecutionsPerSecond | | --- | --- | | Regex | 13440631.0 | | toFixed | 5468258.5 | In this case, the `Regex` approach is significantly faster than the `toFixed()` method.
Related benchmarks:
RegExp.test() vs String.match()
RegExp.test() vs RegExp.match()
RegEx.test vs RegEx.match when fails
Reuse Regex? RegEx.test vs. String.match vs. String.search
Reuse Global Regex? RegEx.test vs. String.match vs. String.search
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?