Benchmark: Check URL protocol and domain new URL, includes, endWith vs Regex

Tests:

newUrl
const url = new URL('https://www.google.com/test?param1=test1&param2=test2'); if ( ['http:', 'https:'].includes(url.protocol) && (url.hostname.endsWith('.google.com') || url.hostname === 'google.com') ) { return url; }
RegEx
const urlPattern = new RegExp('^(https?:\\/\\/)((([a-z\\d]*)\\.)+google\\.com)(\\/[-a-z\\d%_.~+]*)*(\\?[;&a-z\\d%_.~+=-]*)?','i'); const url = 'https://www.google.com/test?param1=test1&param2=test2'; if (!!urlPattern.test(url)) { return url; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
newUrl
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 break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to check if a URL has a specific protocol (http or https) and domain (google.com). The two approaches are:

1. **`newUrl`**: This approach uses the `URL` constructor to parse the input URL. It then checks if the parsed URL's protocol is either 'http:' or 'https:', and if the hostname ends with '.google.com' or equals 'google.com'. If both conditions are true, it returns the original URL.
2. **`RegEx`**: This approach uses a regular expression to match the input URL against a predefined pattern. The pattern checks for the presence of specific characters at the start and end of the URL (including the protocol, hostname, and path), as well as optional query parameters.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **`newUrl`**: Uses the `URL` constructor to parse the input URL.
* **`RegEx`**: Uses a custom regular expression pattern to match the input URL.

**Pros and Cons**

**`newUrl`**:

Pros:

* Easy to read and understand
* Uses built-in JavaScript functionality, reducing overhead

Cons:

* May be slower than a custom implementation due to the overhead of parsing the URL
* Requires an extra step (converting the hostname) which may add unnecessary complexity

**`RegEx`**:

Pros:

* Can be optimized for performance by using anchors and character classes
* Allows for fine-grained control over matching patterns

Cons:

* May be harder to read and understand due to its complexity
* Requires knowledge of regular expressions, which can be a barrier to entry for some developers

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also considers the following factors:

* **Device Platform**: The results are reported for both desktop (Windows) and Opera browser versions.
* **Operating System**: The test is run on Windows 10.

**Library/Functions Used**

There doesn't seem to be any external library or function used in this benchmark, apart from the built-in `URL` constructor.

However, there's a subtle point worth mentioning: the `newUrl` approach uses string concatenation and conditional statements (`&&`, `||`). This might affect performance due to the overhead of these operations.

Related benchmarks:

Check URL protocol and domain new URL, includes, endWith vs Regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: newUrl vs RegEx

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

newUrl

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):