Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test regex2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Regex Test vs String match
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var REGEX_URL = /^https?:\/\//;
Tests:
Regex Test
REGEX_URL.test("http://www.google.com?q=Georgi+Facello")
String match
"http://www.google.com?q=Georgi+Facello".match(REGEX_URL) != null
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Regex Test
String match
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 132 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=584105" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Regex Test
49.3M/s
String match
13.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Regex Test
49,272,840 Ops/sec
String match
13,405,079 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript benchmark on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches for working with regular expressions (regex) and string matching: 1. **Regex Test**: This test measures the execution time of the `REGEX_URL.test("http://www.google.com/q=Georgi+Facello")` expression. 2. **String match**: This test measures the execution time of the `"http://www.google.com/q=Georgi+Facello".match(REGEX_URL) != null` expression. **Options being compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **Native String.test()**: This method is a built-in method in JavaScript that tests if a string matches a regular expression. 2. **RegExp.prototype.test()**: This method is used to test if a string matches a regular expression pattern stored in a RegExp object. **Pros and Cons of each approach** **Native String.test()**: Pros: * Native implementation, likely optimized for performance * Simple syntax Cons: * Limited control over the regex engine * May not support advanced regex features like lookaheads or backreferences **RegExp.prototype.test()**: Pros: * More control over the regex engine * Supports advanced regex features like lookaheads and backreferences Cons: * Slower than native String.test() due to the additional overhead of creating a RegExp object * Less intuitive syntax for some users **Library used** The `REGEX_URL` variable is a regular expression that serves as the pattern for both tests. Its purpose is to match URLs with a specific format. **Special JS feature or syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to working with regular expressions and string matching. **Other alternatives** If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you might consider adding more test cases, such as: * Using `String.prototype.match()` instead of RegExp.prototype.test() * Comparing performance with different regex engines (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey) * Adding tests for edge cases like empty strings or null values Keep in mind that the specifics of each test case and benchmark setup can significantly impact the results. I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.
Related benchmarks
regecxt
Regex vs URL
RegEx.test vs. String.includes checking if https:// or http:// exists
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?