Benchmark: html regexp2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var varregexp = /{{\[([^ .[\]{}]*?)]\.([^ .[\]{}]*?)}}/g;
var htmlregexp = /(<([^>]+)>)/gi;
var html = `<speak>
    Normal volume {{[var2].name2}} for the first sentence.
    <prosody volume="x-loud">Louder volume for the second sentence</prosody>.
    When I wake up, <prosody rate="x-slow">I speak quite slowly</prosody>.
    I can speak with my normal pitch,{{[var].name}}
    <prosody pitch="x-high"> but also with a much higher pitch </prosody>, 
    and also <prosody pitch="low">with a lower pitch</prosody>.
    My favorite chemical element is <sub alias="aluminum">Al</sub>,
    but Al prefers <sub alias="magnesium">Mg</sub>. 
    Here is a number spoken as a cardinal number: 
    <say-as interpret-as="cardinal">{{[var3].name3}}</say-as>.
    Here is the same number with each digit spoken separately:
    <say-as interpret-as="digits">12345</say-as>.
    Here is a word spelled out: <say-as interpret-as="spell-out">{{[var4].name4}}</say-as>
</speak>`

var getLabel = (str) => str;
var replacevars = (str) => str.replace(varregexp, '');
var replacehtml = (str) => str.replace(htmlregexp, '');

Tests:

label
getLabel(html)
vars
replacevars(getLabel(html))
html
replacehtml(getLabel(html))
vars and html
replacehtml(replacevars(getLabel(html)))
html and vars
replacevars(replacehtml(getLabel(html)))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
label
vars
html
vars and html
html and vars

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a set of scripts that are used to test the performance of JavaScript engines on different platforms. The script contains various functions and variables, which are then combined using different methods to create four different test cases:

1. `getLabel(html)`: This function takes an HTML string as input and returns its label.
2. `replacevars(getLabel(html))`: This function calls `getLabel(html)` and replaces any variable placeholders (`{{` followed by a name, e.g., `var2.name2`) with an empty string using the `replacevars` function.
3. `replacehtml(getLabel(html))`: This function calls `getLabel(html)` and replaces any HTML tags (`<...>`) with an empty string using the `replacehtml` function.
4. `replacehtml(replacevars(getLabel(html)))`: This function combines the effects of steps 2 and 3.

**Options Compared**

The four test cases are designed to compare the performance of JavaScript engines in different scenarios:

1. **Simple label extraction**: `getLabel(html)`
2. **Variable replacement with simple labels**: `replacevars(getLabel(html))`
3. **HTML tag replacement**: `replacehtml(getLabel(html))`
4. **Complex combination of variable replacement and HTML tag replacement**: `replacehtml(replacevars(getLabel(html)))`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Simple label extraction (`getLabel(html)`)**:
	* Pros: Minimal overhead, easy to implement.
	* Cons: May not accurately reflect real-world scenarios where labels are used in more complex contexts.
2. **Variable replacement with simple labels (`replacevars(getLabel(html))`)**:
	* Pros: Simulates variable substitution, which is common in text processing.
	* Cons: May introduce unnecessary overhead from the `replacevars` function.
3. **HTML tag replacement (`replacehtml(getLabel(html))`)**:
	* Pros: Accurately reflects scenarios where HTML tags are used to format text.
	* Cons: May not be relevant for other types of text processing.
4. **Complex combination of variable replacement and HTML tag replacement (`replacehtml(replacevars(getLabel(html)))`)**:
	* Pros: Simulates complex text processing scenarios that involve both variable substitution and HTML formatting.
	* Cons: May introduce unnecessary overhead from the nested function calls.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark results also provide information on:

* **Browser**: The browser used to run each test case.
* **DevicePlatform**: The device platform (e.g., desktop, mobile) used to run each test case.
* **OperatingSystem**: The operating system used to run each test case.
* **ExecutionsPerSecond**: The number of executions per second for each test case.

**Alternatives**

If you want to modify or extend this benchmark, consider the following alternatives:

1. Add more complex variables or HTML tags to the script.
2. Use different types of text processing tasks (e.g., regular expression matching).
3. Test on multiple browsers or device platforms.
4. Analyze the benchmark results using statistical methods to identify performance trends.

Keep in mind that this is just a brief overview, and there are many more nuances to consider when analyzing and optimizing JavaScript engine performance.

Related benchmarks:

html regexp2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: label vs vars vs html vs vars and html vs html and vars

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

label

vars

html

vars and html

html and vars

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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