Benchmark: RegExp: negative vs lazy (non-greedy)

Script Preparation code:

/* André Antunes da Cunha - hello world! */
var negative = /<[^>]*>/g;
var lazy = /<.*?>/g;
var input =
    "hello <01> hello <02> hello <03> hello <04> hello <05> hello <06> hello <07> hello <08> hello <09> hello <10> " +
    "hello <11> hello <12> hello <13> hello <14> hello <15> hello <16> hello <17> hello <18> hello <19> hello <20> " +
    "hello";

Tests:

Negative
[...input.matchAll(negative)]; /* Array.from(input.matchAll(negative)); */
Lazy (non-greedy)
[...input.matchAll(lazy)]; /* Array.from(input.matchAll(lazy)); */

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Negative
Lazy (non-greedy)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lazy (non-greedy)

1.1M/s

Negative

1.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lazy (non-greedy)	1,138,305 Ops/sec
Negative	1,105,535 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two regular expression (RegExp) patterns: one with a negative lookahead (`negative`) and another with a lazy (non-greedy) quantifier (`lazy`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Negative Lookahead**: This pattern uses a negative lookahead assertion (`<[^>]*>`) to match any character that is not `>` (the closing angle bracket). The `g` flag at the end of the pattern makes it global, so it matches all occurrences in the input string.
2. **Lazy (Non-Greedy) Quantifier**: This pattern uses a lazy quantifier (`<.*?`) to match any character that is not `>`. The `?` quantifier makes the preceding character (in this case, `<`) as few times as possible, while still matching.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Negative Lookahead**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward pattern.
	* Cons: May lead to slower performance if the negative lookahead is not optimized by the browser's regex engine.
2. **Lazy (Non-Greedy) Quantifier**:
	* Pros: Often more efficient than positive quantifiers, as it allows the browser's regex engine to make educated guesses about the number of matches.
	* Cons: May require a deeper understanding of regular expression patterns and their behavior.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of `matchAll` and `Array.from` suggests that the benchmark is targeting modern JavaScript environments (ES6+).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not specifically test any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond regular expression patterns.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* **Input String**: The input string used in this benchmark is a large sequence of HTML elements with varying levels of nesting. This may affect the performance of both patterns.
* **Browser and Regex Engine**: Different browsers and regex engines may optimize or implement regular expressions differently, which can impact performance.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create an alternative benchmark for regular expression performance, you could consider testing other common scenarios, such as:

1. Matching a specific pattern in a large input string (e.g., `match()` vs. `matchAll()`).
2. Comparing the performance of different quantifiers (e.g., `+`, `*`, `?`) or character classes.
3. Testing the performance of regular expressions with Unicode characters or non-ASCII characters.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmark scenario ultimately depends on your specific use case and goals.

RegExp: negative vs lazy (non-greedy) (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Negative vs Lazy (non-greedy)`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Negative

Lazy (non-greedy)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

RegExp: negative vs lazy (non-greedy) (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Negative vs Lazy (non-greedy)

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Negative

Lazy (non-greedy)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Negative vs Lazy (non-greedy)`