Benchmark: Test RegExp Performance

Script Preparation code:

var reConstructor = new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$')

Tests:

1
reConstructor.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')
2
new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$').test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	20610048.0 Ops/sec
2	11573340.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of regular expressions (regex) in JavaScript, specifically:

1. Creating a new regex object using the `RegExp` constructor
2. Using the existing `RegExp` constructor without creating a new object

**Options compared:**

Two approaches are being compared:

**Approach 1:** `var reConstructor = new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$')`
```javascript
var reConstructor = new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$');
```
This approach creates a new regex object using the `RegExp` constructor and assigns it to the `reConstructor` variable.

**Approach 2:** `new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$').test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')`
```javascript
new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$').test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')
```
This approach creates a new regex object using the existing `RegExp` constructor and then calls its `test()` method to test a string.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Approach 1 (Creating a new regex object)**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more efficient since it avoids creating multiple regex objects
		+ Allows for caching the compiled regex pattern
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new regex object, which can be expensive in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection
2. **Approach 2 (Using existing `RegExp` constructor)**
	* Pros:
		+ Reuses an existing regex object, which can reduce memory allocation and garbage collection overhead
	* Cons:
		+ May result in multiple compiled regex objects being created, which can lead to slower performance

**Library:**

In this benchmark, the `RegExp` library is used to create regular expressions. The `RegExp` constructor is a built-in JavaScript function that creates a new regular expression object.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. It only uses standard JavaScript syntax and libraries like `RegExp`.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test similar benchmarks, you could consider using other approaches, such as:

1. Using a regex engine like [RegEx.org](https://regex.org/)
2. Creating a custom regex implementation
3. Using a different programming language (e.g., Python with the `re` module)

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly comparable to this JavaScript benchmark, but they can still provide interesting insights into performance and optimization.

If you have any specific questions or would like further clarification on any of these points, feel free to ask!

Related benchmarks:

Test RegExp Performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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