Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Regex vs URL
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
regex vs URL
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Tests:
regex
/^[a-z0-9]+([-.][a-z0-9]+)*\.[a-z]{2,18}$/.test("google.com")
URL
try { new URL('https://google.com'); } catch(e) { console.error(e); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
regex
URL
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome Mobile 133 on Android
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=587058" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
regex
19.8M/s
URL
1.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
regex
19,803,430 Ops/sec
URL
1,794,902 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two approaches: using regular expressions (regex) to validate URLs and using the built-in `URL` constructor in JavaScript. The goal is to measure which approach is faster. **Options Compared** 1. **Regex**: This option uses a regular expression to validate if a string is a valid URL. 2. **URL**: This option uses the built-in `URL` constructor to create a new instance from a given URL string, and checks for errors. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** ### Regex Pros: * Simple to implement * Works well for simple validation rules * Can be optimized with caching or memoization for repeated validations Cons: * Can be slow due to the complexity of regular expressions and the need for Unicode character matching * May not cover all possible valid URL formats * Requires expertise in regular expression syntax ### URL Pros: * Built-in support makes it easy to implement * Faster than regex for complex validation rules * Covers most valid URL formats according to the specification (RFC 3986) Cons: * May throw errors if the input is not a valid URL string * Can be slower due to parsing and error handling mechanisms **Library/Functionality Used** In this benchmark, the `URL` constructor is used. The purpose of the `URL` constructor is to parse a URL string and return an object with various properties (e.g., protocol, hostname, pathname). This allows for easy validation and manipulation of URLs. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers have optimized the `URL` constructor to handle common URL formats efficiently. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for validating URLs include: 1. **Libraries**: There are several libraries available for validating URLs, such as `url-regex` (a regex-based library) and `is-url`. 2. **Regex alternatives**: Some libraries or implementations use alternative regex patterns or techniques to improve performance, like `url-normalizer`. 3. **Browser-specific APIs**: Each browser has its own API for working with URLs, which can be used to validate URLs. In summary, this benchmark provides a straightforward comparison between two approaches: using regular expressions and the built-in `URL` constructor in JavaScript. The results help developers understand which approach is faster for URL validation tasks.
Related benchmarks
regecxt
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?