Benchmark: Compare regexp vs literal creation and test

Tests:

using new RegExp()
new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$').test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')
using literal
/^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using new RegExp()
using literal

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.

Let's dive into the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to test a regular expression (regexp) pattern: literal creation and regexp creation using the `new RegExp()` constructor. The test cases verify whether the regexp engine can correctly identify a hexadecimal string as valid or not, given an input string that matches this pattern.

**Options compared:**

1. **Literal Creation:** `/^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')`
2. **Regexp Creation using `new RegExp()`**: `new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$').test('132abc67219f019afe12901a')`

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Literal Creation:**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code, as the regexp pattern is explicitly defined.
		+ Less chance of errors due to typos or misinterpretation of the pattern.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than regexp creation using `new RegExp()`, since it requires parsing the string literal at runtime.
2. **Regexp Creation using `new RegExp()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster, since it allows for more efficient caching and reuse of the regexp pattern.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to errors due to typos or misinterpretation of the pattern.
		+ Less readable code, as the pattern is not explicitly defined.

**Library used:**

None.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses JavaScript's built-in `RegExp` object and its methods (`test()`), which are part of the ECMAScript standard. No special features or syntax are used beyond what's standard in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives:**

For comparison, you could also use alternative approaches like:

* Using a library like `regexpkit`, which provides a more efficient way to create and optimize regular expressions.
* Employing a different testing framework or approach, such as using a custom-written function to test the regexp pattern.

However, these alternatives are not part of the original benchmark, so they wouldn't affect the comparison between literal creation and regexp creation using `new RegExp()`.

Related benchmarks:

Compare regexp vs literal creation and test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using new RegExp() vs using literal

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using new RegExp()

using literal

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):