Benchmark: JS > exec vs matchAll vs match

Tests:

1111
const TAG_REGEX = /(\w+)/g; const dirtyHtml = 'aqui é uma <strong class="elm">questão</strong> de teste <img class="elm" onerror="opa"></img><br class="elm"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/>'; TAG_REGEX.exec(dirtyHtml)
2222
const TAG_REGEX = /(\w+)/g; const dirtyHtml = 'aqui é uma <strong class="elm">questão</strong> de teste <img class="elm" onerror="opa"></img><br class="elm"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/>'; dirtyHtml.matchAll(TAG_REGEX)
3333
const TAG_REGEX = /(\w+)/g; const dirtyHtml = 'aqui é uma <strong class="elm">questão</strong> de teste <img class="elm" onerror="opa"></img><br class="elm"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/><iframe src="http://" class="iframeclass"/>'; dirtyHtml.match(TAG_REGEX)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

1111

28.3M/s

2222

21.5M/s

3333

1.6M/s

Fastest: 1111 (17.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ 1111: 28,316,814 ops/sec
• 2222: 21,543,672 ops/sec
• 3333: 1,629,254 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1111
2222
3333

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

1111

30.5M/s

2222

23.8M/s

3333

2.6M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ 1111	30,525,372 Ops/sec
2222	23,752,764 Ops/sec
3333	2,609,013 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 benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for searching a regular expression in a string:

1. `exec()`
2. `matchAll()`
3. `match()`

**Regular Expression**

The regular expression used in all benchmarks is: `\w+`, which matches one or more word characters (letters, numbers, and underscores).

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code for each benchmark is identical:
```javascript
const TAG_REGEX = /(\\w+)/g;
const dirtyHtml = 'aqui é uma <strong class="elm">questão</strong> de teste <img class="elm" onerror="opa"></img><br class="elm"/><iframe src="http://\" class=\"iframeclass\"/><iframe src="http://\" class=\"iframeclass\"/><iframe src="http://\" class=\"iframeclass\"/>';
```
This code defines the regular expression and a string `dirtyHtml` that contains HTML elements with classes that match the regular expression.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are three test cases, each representing one of the three approaches:

1. **exec()**: This approach uses the `exec()` method to search for the first occurrence of the regular expression in the `dirtyHtml` string.
```javascript
TAG_REGEX.exec(dirtyHtml);
```
2. **matchAll()**: This approach uses the `matchAll()` method to search for all occurrences of the regular expression in the `dirtyHtml` string, returning an iterator with an array of matches.
```javascript
TAG_REGEX.matchAll(dirtyHtml)
```
3. **match()**: This approach uses the `match()` method to search for a single occurrence of the regular expression in the `dirtyHtml` string. The difference between this and `exec()` is that `match()` returns null if no match is found, whereas `exec()` returns an empty array.
```javascript
TAG_REGEX.match(dirtyHtml);
```
**Pros and Cons**

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

* **exec()**: Pros:
	+ Returns the first match as an object, which can be useful for certain use cases.
	+ Can return null if no match is found.
	Cons:
	+ May be slower than `matchAll()` or `match()` due to its imperative nature.
* **matchAll()**: Pros:
	+ Returns all matches as an iterator with an array of arrays, which can be useful for certain use cases (e.g., processing multiple matches).
	+ Can be faster than `exec()` and `match()` since it uses a more efficient algorithm.
Cons:
	+ Requires iterating over the results, which may not be desirable in some cases.
* **match()**: Pros:
	+ Returns null if no match is found, which can be useful for certain use cases (e.g., handling missing data).
	+ Can be faster than `exec()` due to its simpler algorithm.

**Libraries and Features**

There are no external libraries used in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript's built-in regular expression engine is optimized for performance and provides a good balance between speed and features.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in these benchmarks.

JS > exec vs matchAll vs match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `1111 vs 2222 vs 3333`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

1111

2222

3333

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JS > exec vs matchAll vs match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1111 vs 2222 vs 3333

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

1111

2222

3333

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

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: `1111 vs 2222 vs 3333`