Benchmark: hostname - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var host1 = "www.google.com";
var host2 = "www.google.co.uk";
var host3 = "google.com";

Tests:

orig1
var hostname = host1.match(/^(?:www\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
orig2
var hostname = host2.match(/^(?:www\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
orig3
var hostname = host3.match(/^(?:www\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];
new1
var hostname = host1.match(/([^.]+)(?:\.co)?\.[^.]+$/)[1];
new2
var hostname = host2.match(/([^.]+)(?:\.co)?\.[^.]+$/)[1];
new3
var hostname = host3.match(/([^.]+)(?:\.co)?\.[^.]+$/)[1];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
orig1
orig2
orig3
new1
new2
new3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript snippet that extracts the hostname from three predefined strings using regular expressions. The extracted hostnames are then matched against two different patterns:

1. `var hostname = hostX.match(/^(?:www\\.)?([^.]+)/)[1];` (Origins)
2. `var hostname = hostX.match(/([^.]+)(?:\\.co)?\\.[^.]+$/)[1];` (New pattern)

The main goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of extracting hostnames using these two patterns.

**Options being compared**

Two different approaches are being compared:

1. **Origins**: Using the `match` method with a regular expression that matches the hostname from the beginning of the string (`^(?:www\\.)?([^.]+)`).
2. **New pattern**: Using a more specific regular expression that accounts for subdomains and country code top-level domains (e.g., `.co.uk`). This pattern is designed to match hostnames with variations, such as `google.co.uk`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Origins**:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to understand.
	* Cons: May not account for variations in hostname formats (e.g., subdomains, country code TLDs).
2. **New pattern**:
	* Pros: More accurate and flexible, accounting for various hostname formats.
	* Cons: More complex regular expression, potentially slower execution.

**Library usage**

None of the provided JavaScript code uses any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark utilizes some common JavaScript features:

1. **Regular expressions**: Used to extract hostnames from strings.
2. **Array indexing**: Used to access and manipulate arrays (e.g., `match()` returns an array, which is indexed `[1]` to get the hostname).
3. **String concatenation**: Used in the script preparation code.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test different approaches for extracting hostnames, you might consider:

1. Using a dedicated library or module (e.g., `hostname.js`) that provides more robust and efficient methods for extracting hostnames.
2. Comparing performance using other regular expression patterns or techniques (e.g., using `String.prototype.replace()` instead of `match()`).
3. Adding additional test cases to cover different hostname formats, such as IPv4 addresses or hostnames with special characters.

Keep in mind that the provided benchmark is designed to compare two specific approaches for extracting hostnames. Any changes or additions would require careful consideration of the underlying mechanics and potential performance implications.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_3) AppleWebKit/602.4.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.0.3 Safari/602.4.8

Browser/OS: Safari 10 on Mac OS X 10.12.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
orig1	4139608.5 Ops/sec
orig2	4166666.8 Ops/sec
orig3	4120792.2 Ops/sec
new1	3077706.8 Ops/sec
new2	3095862.0 Ops/sec
new3	4425361.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

hostname (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: orig1 vs orig2 vs orig3 vs new1 vs new2 vs new3

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

orig1

orig2

orig3

new1

new2

new3

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):