Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
RegExp literal cache or not
(version: 1)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
Cache vs No cache
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var text = ['Micheal', '<a>Haha</a>']; var RE_HTML_TAG = /<[^>]+>/;
Tests:
Cache
text.map(function(x){ RE_HTML_TAG.test(x) });
No cache
text.map(function(x){ /<[^>]+>/.test(x) });
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Cache
No cache
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
8 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:146.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/146.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 146 on Ubuntu
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=623203" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Cache
19.7M/s
No cache
15.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Cache
19,734,314 Ops/sec
No cache
15,913,800 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition:** The website uses JavaScript microbenchmarks, specifically targeting performance-related aspects of regular expression (RegExp) usage in JavaScript. The benchmark definition consists of two variations: 1. **Cache**: This option involves creating a cached version of the RegExp object using `var RE_HTML_TAG = /<[^>]+>/;`. The cache stores the compiled RegExp pattern for future use, which should reduce overhead by avoiding repeated pattern compilation. 2. **No Cache**: In this variation, no caching is used, and the RegExp pattern is recompiled every time it's needed. **Options Compared:** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. Using a cached RegExp object (`var RE_HTML_TAG = /<[^>]+>/;`) 2. Not using a cached RegExp object (i.e., recompiling the pattern every time) **Pros and Cons:** * **Cached RegExp Object (Cache)**: + Pros: - Reduced overhead due to reduced pattern compilation. - Can lead to better performance in benchmarking, as repeated patterns are not compiled multiple times. + Cons: - May incur additional memory usage due to stored cached patterns. - Could potentially increase memory leaks if the cache is not properly cleaned up. * **No Cached RegExp Object (No Cache)**: + Pros: - Lowers memory usage, reducing the risk of memory leaks. + Cons: - Increases overhead due to repeated pattern compilation. **Library and Purpose:** The `RegExp` object in JavaScript provides a built-in mechanism for creating regular expression patterns. The `test()` method is used to check if the subject string matches the pattern. In this benchmark, both variations use the same `test()` method, but with different caching strategies. **Special JS Feature or Syntax:** This benchmark does not explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `RegExp` object usage. **Other Alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring other approaches or alternatives to this benchmark, consider the following: * Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler like SpiderMonkey (for Firefox) or V8 (for Chrome) to optimize RegExp performance. * Investigating other caching strategies, such as memoization or lazy evaluation. * Examining alternative regular expression libraries or frameworks that might offer improved performance or features. In summary, this benchmark compares two caching strategies for RegExp objects in JavaScript: using a cached object versus not using one. The results should provide insights into the performance implications of these approaches and help identify potential optimization opportunities.
Related benchmarks
Cache js regex
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?