Benchmark: RegEx vs For Loop4

HTML Preparation code:

var string = "passw)odas4gsdfsdf";

Script Preparation code:

var string = "passw)odas4gsdfsdf";

Tests:

RegEx
let isPasswordValid = false; const FORBIDDEN_CHARACTERS = [`<`, `>`, `&`, `$`]; for (const character of FORBIDDEN_CHARACTERS) { const position = input.data.indexOf(character); if (position !== -1) { return INVALID; } }
For Loop
const FORBIDDEN_CHARACTERS = [`<`, `>`, `&`, `$`]; const forbiddenRegex = new RegExp(`[${FORBIDDEN_CHARACTERS.join('')}]`); const match = forbiddenRegex.exec(string); if (match) { return INVALID; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx
For Loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx	0.0 Ops/sec
For Loop	3253133.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided Benchmark Definition JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for validating a password: using a `for` loop with character indexing or using regular expressions (RegEx). The goal is to determine which approach is faster, more efficient, and less resource-intensive.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **For Loop**: This approach iterates through an array of forbidden characters using a traditional `for` loop. For each character, it checks if the input string contains that character at a specific position.
2. **RegEx**: This approach uses regular expressions to match one or more occurrences of the specified forbidden characters in the input string.

**Pros and Cons**

**For Loop:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with JavaScript's `for` loop syntax.
* Can be optimized for specific use cases, such as using `indexOf()` method with caching.

Cons:

* May not perform well on large inputs due to the overhead of looping through each character individually.
* Less efficient than RegEx in terms of CPU cycles and memory usage.

**RegEx:**

Pros:

* More concise and expressive syntax for matching patterns.
* Can be more efficient than a `for` loop, especially for complex patterns or large inputs.

Cons:

* Steeper learning curve due to the complexity of RegEx syntax.
* May lead to performance issues if not optimized correctly (e.g., using `RegExp.prototype.exec()` with caching).

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript `RegExp` library, which provides regular expression matching capabilities. The RegEx pattern used in the benchmark is a simple one, matching any of the forbidden characters (`<`, `>`, `&`, `$`) directly.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark uses JavaScript 8+ syntax and assumes a modern browser environment.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches for validating passwords could include:

* Using a `String.prototype.includes()` method with caching.
* Implementing a custom algorithm using bitwise operations or character lookup tables.
* Utilizing browser-specific features, such as WebAssembly or native modules (e.g., `nacl-regex`).

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your application. The benchmark provided by MeasureThat.net offers a good starting point for comparing performance differences between these two approaches.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx vs For Loop4 (version: 0)

-

Comparing performance of: RegEx vs For Loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx

For Loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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