Benchmark: check regex vs split

Script Preparation code:

var tester = /^[-!#$%&'*+\/0-9=?A-Z^_a-z`{|}~](\.?[-!#$%&'*+\/0-9=?A-Z^_a-z`{|}~])*@[a-zA-Z0-9](-*\.?[a-zA-Z0-9])*\.[a-zA-Z](-?[a-zA-Z0-9])+$/;
var email = "valid@gmail.com"
var email2 = "invalidgmail.com"

Tests:

regex
tester.test("invalidemail")
Other
var emailParts = email.split('@'); var account = emailParts[0]; var address = emailParts[1]; if (account.length > 64) return false; else if (address.length > 255) return false; var domainParts = address.split('.'); if (domainParts.some(function (part) { return part.length > 63; })) return false;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
Other

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.

I'll explain what's tested in the provided benchmark, describe the options compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. Using a regular expression (`regex`) to validate an email address.
2. Splitting the email address into its local part and domain using the `split()` method, and then validating each part separately.

**Options Compared**

The two options are:

1. **Regular Expression (Regex)**: Using a regex pattern to validate the entire email address in one step.
2. **Split() Method**: Splitting the email address into its local part and domain, and then validating each part separately using conditional statements.

**Pros/Cons of Each Approach**

**Regex**

Pros:

* Can be more concise and expressive than manual validation.
* Can handle complex email address formats.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the complexity of the regex pattern.
* Can be less readable and maintainable for large or complex patterns.

**Split() Method**

Pros:

* Typically faster, as it involves simpler string operations.
* Can be more readable and maintainable than a long regex pattern.

Cons:

* Requires multiple steps, which can increase overhead.
* May not handle complex email address formats well.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also compares the performance of these two approaches on different devices and browsers. This allows for a broader understanding of how these techniques perform in various environments.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond the built-in `split()` method and regex patterns.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code defines a simple email address validation script that uses both the regex approach (`tester.test("invalidemail")`) and the split() method approach (`var emailParts = email.split('@');...`). The `tester` variable is defined with a regex pattern for email address validation, while the `email` variables are set to two different email addresses: "valid@gmail.com" (valid) and "invalidgmail.com" (invalid).

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **regex**: This test case uses the regex approach to validate an invalid email address.
2. **Other**: This test case uses the split() method approach to validate an email address, but only checks specific conditions (length of local part and domain parts) rather than using a full validation logic.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for validating email addresses might include:

* Using a library like `email-validator` or `express-validator`
* Implementing a custom validation function with multiple steps
* Using a different data structure, such as a trie or a suffix tree

Related benchmarks:

check regex vs split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs Other

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

Other

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):