Benchmark: lifting-re-creation

Script Preparation code:

var a = 'asrtarstarstarstarst';
var b = 'oienoienoienoienoin';
var c = 'arsoienaroistenaoristenaorisetnaorist';
var d = 'wfpqwfp;yuwflpywulfpywulfp';

var re = /abcdefg/i;

Tests:

no lifting
var localRe = new RegExp( 'abcdefg', 'i' ); (a+b+c+d).search( localRe );
lifting
(a+b+c+d).search(re)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no lifting
lifting

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The `lifting-re-creation` benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: one that uses "lifting" (also known as "compiled regular expressions") and another that does not. The benchmark creates a large string of characters (`a`, `b`, `c`, and `d`) and defines two regular expression objects: `re` and `localRe`. The test cases measure the performance of searching for a specific pattern in this large string using these two approaches.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **"lifting" (or "compiled regular expressions")**: This approach creates a RegExp object once, compiles it, and then reuses the compiled form multiple times. This can improve performance because the compilation step only needs to be done once.
2. **"no lifting"**: This approach creates a new RegExp object every time it is needed, without compiling it first.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lifting (compiled regular expressions)**
	+ Pros:
		- Can provide significant performance improvements due to the compilation step being only done once.
		- Reduces the overhead of creating and compiling a new RegExp object on each use.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work as expected if the compiled form is modified (e.g., by using `RegExp.prototype.source`).
		- Requires careful consideration when working with complex regular expressions to ensure that the compilation step does not introduce performance bottlenecks.
* **No lifting**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and easy to understand, as it uses straightforward JavaScript syntax.
		- Does not require any special considerations or optimizations.
	+ Cons:
		- May result in slower performance due to the repeated creation and compilation of new RegExp objects.

**Library/Functionality**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond the built-in `RegExp` function. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have optimized their regular expression implementations or may use proprietary features like "lifting" (compiled regular expressions) internally.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `RegExp` and `String.prototype.search()` methods. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may optimize regular expression performance using various heuristics or algorithms.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in running similar benchmarks or experimenting with different approaches to measuring JavaScript performance, here are a few alternatives:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Consider using established benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or jsperf, which provide more comprehensive and structured testing capabilities.
2. **Modern web performance tools**: Utilize modern web performance tools like WebPageTest, Lighthouse, or Chrome DevTools' Performance section to measure page load times and identify areas for optimization.
3. **Personalized experiments**: Design your own benchmarks using a combination of JavaScript, HTML, and CSS, tailored to specific use cases or performance characteristics you'd like to evaluate.

Keep in mind that each benchmarking approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and choosing the right tool depends on your specific goals, requirements, and expertise.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 58 on Mac OS X 10.12.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
no lifting	1072297.9 Ops/sec
lifting	1413519.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lifting-re-creation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: no lifting vs lifting

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

no lifting

lifting

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):