Benchmark: regex speed test

HTML Preparation code:

<script>
  var input_string = "passw)odas4gsdfsdf";
const regex_test = new RegExp('(?=.*[0-9])');
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var input_string = "passw)odas4gsdfsdf";
const regex_test = new RegExp('(?=.*[0-9])');

Tests:

regex
let isPasswordValid = false; isPasswordValid = regex_test.test(input_string);
loop
let isPasswordValid = false; for (let i = 0; i < input_string.length; i++) { let code = input_string.charCodeAt(i); if (code >= 48 && code <= 57) { isPasswordValid = true; break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches: using a regular expression (`regex`) and iterating through the input string using a `for` loop (`loop`). Both approaches aim to validate whether a given input string contains at least one digit.

**What is being tested?**

In essence, this benchmark tests how efficiently each approach can iterate over the input string and check if it contains digits. The test cases are designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches in terms of the number of executions per second on a specific browser (Firefox 112) running on a Mac OS X 10.15 device.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two main options:

1. **Regular Expression (`regex`)**: Using a regular expression to match any digit within the input string.
2. **Manual Loop (`loop`)**: Iterating through each character of the input string and checking if it's a digit using `charCodeAt()`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Regular Expression (`regex`):**

Pros:

* Concise and easy to read
* Can be reused for similar validation tasks

Cons:

* May have performance overhead due to regex engine processing
* Limited control over the matching process (e.g., no way to specify exact digit positions)

**Manual Loop (`loop`):**

Pros:

* Provides direct access to each character's ASCII code value, allowing fine-grained control
* Can be optimized for specific use cases or performance needs

Cons:

* More verbose and harder to read compared to regex
* May require more manual testing and debugging effort

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark uses a relatively simple input string (`"passw)odas4gsdfsdf"`), which may not accurately represent real-world scenarios.
* The benchmark focuses on detecting the presence of digits, but other validation tasks (e.g., checking for specific patterns or ranges) might require different approaches.

**Library and special JS feature**

The `RegExp` class is used to create a regular expression object. There are no other notable libraries or features being used in this benchmark.

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or testing other JavaScript features, consider the following:

* Other regex-related tests could involve exploring the performance of specific regex patterns (e.g., `^` character class, `\d` escape sequence) or using regex flags (e.g., `g`, `m`) to optimize performance.
* For loops and array methods (e.g., `forEach()`, `map()`) can be used as alternatives to manual loops for iterating over arrays.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 112 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	23158486.0 Ops/sec
loop	39995888.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

regex speed test (version: 0)

regex speed test

Comparing performance of: regex vs loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):