Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Check regex perf2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
1 vs 2
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
1
const FunctionExtractRegex1 = /\[(.+)\](\((.*)\))*/g; const o = FunctionExtractRegex1.exec(`1. Call [calendar]("get", "yesterday") to get things planned for yesterday. OUTPUT: [["date": "yesterday", ...], ...] 2. Call [summarize](<step 1.>) to summarize all the planned stuff. OUTPUT: "XYZ is for yesterday, YHX..." 3. Call [pass] to send the output to the AI. 4. Call [calendar]("get", "next week") to get things planned for the next week. OUTPUT: [["date": "next week", ...], ...] 5. Call [summarize](<step 4.>) to summarize all the planned stuff. OUTPUT: "XYZ is for the next week, YHX..." 6. Call [pass] to send the output to the AI.`); console.log(o);
2
const FunctionExtractRegex2 = /\[(.+)\](\((<(step.*)>|.*)\))*/g; const o = FunctionExtractRegex2.exec(`1. Call [calendar]("get", "yesterday") to get things planned for yesterday. OUTPUT: [["date": "yesterday", ...], ...] 2. Call [summarize](<step 1.>) to summarize all the planned stuff. OUTPUT: "XYZ is for yesterday, YHX..." 3. Call [pass] to send the output to the AI. 4. Call [calendar]("get", "next week") to get things planned for the next week. OUTPUT: [["date": "next week", ...], ...] 5. Call [summarize](<step 4.>) to summarize all the planned stuff. OUTPUT: "XYZ is for the next week, YHX..." 6. Call [pass] to send the output to the AI.`); console.log(o);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
1
2
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 provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is empty in this case, which means that the script preparation code is expected to be provided by the user. The HTML preparation code is also not specified, suggesting that it might be handled differently or left up to the test users. **Individual Test Cases** We have two test cases: 1. `FunctionExtractRegex1` 2. `FunctionExtractRegex2` These test cases seem to be related to regular expression extraction from a string, specifically designed to extract steps and their corresponding output from a given text. **Regular Expressions Used** In both test cases, the same regular expression is used: ```javascript const FunctionExtractRegex = /\\[(.+)\\](\\((.*)\\))*/g; ``` This regex pattern matches the following: * `\\[`: matches a literal `[` character * `(.)`: captures one or more characters (the actual step name) in group 1 * `\\(`: matches a literal `(` character * `(.*)`: captures zero or more characters (the actual step details) in group 2 * `\\)`: matches a literal `)` character The `g` flag at the end makes the regex search for all matches in the string, not just the first one. **Test Names** Each test case has a unique "Test Name" assigned to it: 1. `1` 2. `2` These names likely correspond to the order in which the tests were run or some other internal identifier. **Other Considerations** There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned, so we can assume that this benchmark is purely focused on regex performance comparison between two different approaches. **Library Usage** Neither test case explicitly uses any libraries, but it's worth noting that the `exec()` method used in both test cases might be an intrinsic part of JavaScript, so it's likely that any differences in execution time are due to the regular expression patterns themselves rather than library usage. **Alternatives** If you were to rewrite this benchmark with different approaches or libraries, some potential alternatives could include: 1. Using a different regex pattern or approach to extract steps and their details. 2. Implementing a similar task using a parsing library (e.g., for natural language processing). 3. Comparing the performance of different programming languages or runtimes on this specific task. However, without more information about potential alternatives, it's difficult to provide further suggestions. **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** For comparison purposes, here are some pros and cons of different approaches: * **Regex approach (as used in the benchmark)**: + Pros: straightforward implementation, widely supported by most programming languages. + Cons: can be slow for complex patterns or large inputs. * **Parsing library approach**: + Pros: potentially faster than regex for complex tasks, can handle nuances of natural language. + Cons: might require additional dependencies, may not work as well with all programming languages. Ultimately, the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Regexp creation vs memoization
Check regexp
regex 0001 + 1
regex 0001 + 2
regex 0001 + 4
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?