Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test compiled vs regexp
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
regexp vs literal
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
regexp
new RegExp("^(:?[^./]+\\.)*slack.com").test("sub1.sub2.slack.com/");
literal
/^(:?[^./]+\.)*slack.com/.test("sub1.sub2.slack.com/");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
regexp
literal
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=606412" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
regexp
19248044.0 Ops/sec
literal
56588548.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition and Options** The provided benchmark definition represents two test cases that compare the performance of compiled regular expressions (regex) with literal regex strings in JavaScript. The options being compared are: 1. **Literal Regex String**: A string that uses the `test()` method to check if a given URL matches a specific pattern. 2. **Compiled Regex**: A regular expression object created using the `new RegExp()` constructor, which is then used to test URLs. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Literal Regex String**: + Pros: Easy to read and understand, no need for compilation or caching. + Cons: Can be slower due to string parsing and method call overhead. * **Compiled Regex**: + Pros: Generally faster since the regex engine is optimized and cached, reducing overhead. + Cons: Requires more memory to store the compiled regex pattern and can be more complex to read. The choice between literal and compiled regex ultimately depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. If readability and simplicity are more important than raw speed, a literal regex string might be preferred. However, if performance is critical, compiling a regex pattern can provide significant gains in execution speed. **Library** In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `RegExp` constructor and the `test()` method are built-in JavaScript functions that do not require any additional dependencies. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that the use of `new RegExp()` and the `.test()` method is a common pattern in JavaScript for working with regular expressions. **Alternative Approaches** If you wanted to write your own benchmarking script using MeasureThat.net's API, you could consider the following alternatives: 1. Use a different regex syntax or escape characters. 2. Test multiple browsers or devices. 3. Compare performance with different optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization). 4. Include additional inputs or edge cases to test the robustness of your code. Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net already provides a solid framework for benchmarking JavaScript performance, so creating custom benchmarks might not add significant value.
Related benchmarks:
RegExp constructor vs literal, constructing in function
RegEx.exec vs regex.test
new RegExp test
RegEx.test vs RegEx.match when fails
RegExp constructor vs literal (re-do creation)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?