Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Check if character is not a lowercase letter
(version: 0)
regex test vs alphabet string includes vs charCodeAt
Comparing performance of:
regex vs alphaIncludes vs charCodeBetween
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function regex(key) { return /[^a-z]/.test(key); } const alpha = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; function alphaIncludes(key) { return alpha.includes(key); } function charCodeBetween(key) { return key >= 97 && key <= 122 }
Tests:
regex
regex("s")
alphaIncludes
alphaIncludes("s")
charCodeBetween
charCodeBetween("s")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
regex
alphaIncludes
charCodeBetween
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):
Let's break down the benchmark definition and options compared. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark is designed to test three different approaches: 1. **Regex**: Using regular expressions to check if a character is not a lowercase letter. 2. **Alphabet String Includes**: Checking if a character is included in an alphabet string ("abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"). 3. **CharCodeAt**: Using the `charCodeAt()` method to check if a character's Unicode code point falls within a specific range (97-122, which corresponds to lowercase letters). **Options Compared:** These three approaches are compared to determine their performance characteristics. * **Pros and Cons:** + Regex: - Pros: Regular expressions can be powerful pattern-matching tools. - Cons: They can be slow due to the complexity of parsing and matching patterns. + Alphabet String Includes: - Pros: This approach is simple and fast, as it only requires a single array lookup. - Cons: It may not be suitable for larger alphabet strings or more complex checks. + CharCodeAt: - Pros: This approach can be efficient for Unicode code point operations. - Cons: It relies on the `charCodeAt()` method's performance, which may vary depending on the browser and environment. **Library Usage:** The benchmark uses the following library: * None explicitly mentioned. However, it's likely that these functions are built-in JavaScript methods or utilities, as there's no explicit reference to external libraries. **Special JS Features/Syntax:** There is no mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing different approaches to a specific problem. **Other Alternatives:** If you were to rewrite these benchmarks with alternative approaches, some options could include: * Using a `Set` data structure for the alphabet string instead of an array. * Employing a more advanced regular expression pattern or using a library like `regex-escape`. * Utilizing a custom-made function that takes into account the specific requirements and optimizations of each approach. In terms of browser-specific alternatives, you could consider testing: * Using the `String.prototype.match()` method instead of `charCodeAt()` * Employing the `Intl` API for Unicode code point operations * Using the `text-regex` library for regular expression optimizations Keep in mind that the best alternative will depend on your specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
RegEx.test vs. String.includes case insensitive
includes + toLowerCase vs RegExp + i
Case insensitive RegEx.test vs. String.includes when string doesn’t match
Case insensitive search: regex.test() vs string.toLowerCase().includes()
regex vs includes - case insensitive
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?