Benchmark: regexp vs split 5

Script Preparation code:

var fullAppName = 'vendor.appname@10.9.8'

Tests:

regexp
const splitAppName = /[^@.]+/g const [vendor] = splitAppName.exec(fullAppName) || [null] const [name] = splitAppName.exec(fullAppName) || [null] const [major] = splitAppName.exec(fullAppName) || [null]
split
const [fullName, version] = fullAppName.split('@', 2) const [major] = version.split('.', 1) const [vendor, name] = fullName.split('.', 2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regexp
split

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.80 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Mac OS X 10.14.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regexp	1714897.5 Ops/sec
split	972227.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to extract information from a full application name string: regular expressions (RegExp) and the `split()` method.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **RegExp**: This test case uses a RegExp object (`splitAppName`) to extract three components from the full application name string:
	* Vendor name
	* Application name
	* Major version number

The regular expression is designed to match one or more non-`@` and `.` characters, followed by an optional `@` character, and then captures the vendor name, application name, and major version number.

2. **Split**: This test case uses the `split()` method to extract the same information from the full application name string:
	* Vendor name
	* Application name
	* Major version number

The `split()` method is used twice, first on the `@` character to separate the vendor and application names, and then on the `.` character to separate the major version number.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **RegExp**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and powerful for complex string matching
		+ Can be used for other purposes beyond extracting specific information
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than the `split()` method due to the overhead of creating a RegExp object and executing the pattern match
		+ Requires more code to define the regular expression pattern
2. **Split**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster than the RegExp approach due to the simplicity of the `split()` method
		+ Less code required
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than RegExp for complex string matching
		+ Assumes a specific format for the input string (e.g., `vendor@application-version`)

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also takes into account various factors that can affect performance, such as:

1. **Browser and Device**: The benchmark uses data from real-world browsers and devices to ensure that the results are representative of different scenarios.
2. **Operating System**: The benchmark uses data from a specific operating system (Mac OS X 10.14.0) to account for potential differences in performance.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit use of external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the `split()` method. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript environments may have additional capabilities or built-in functions that could be used to improve performance or simplify the extraction process.

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing the performance of this benchmark, I can provide more guidance on other methods and techniques.

Related benchmarks:

regexp vs split 5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regexp vs split

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regexp

split

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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