Benchmark: Test regex2 - MeasureThat.net

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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Regex Test
String match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months 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

Test name	Executions per second
Regex Test	49272840.0 Ops/sec
String match	13405079.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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:

Test regex2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Regex Test vs String match

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Regex Test

String match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):