Benchmark: test regex vs loop

Tests:

regex

const regex = /(00|11|22|33|44|55|66|77|88|99)/;
let num = 3298;
num = num + 1;
let aux = (num).toString();

while (regex.test(aux)) {
  num += 1;
  aux = num.toString();
}

​x
 
const regex = /(00|11|22|33|44|55|66|77|88|99)/;let num = 3298;num = num + 1;let aux = (num).toString();​while (regex.test(aux)) {  num += 1;  aux = num.toString();}​

loop

let num = 3298;
const consecutiveChars = function(num) {
  const arr = num.toString().split('');
  for (let idx = 0; idx < arr.length - 1; idx++) {
    if (arr[idx] == arr[idx + 1])
      return true;
  }

  return false;
}

num = num + 1;
while (consecutiveChars(num)) {
  num++;
}

 
let num = 3298;const consecutiveChars = function(num) {  const arr = num.toString().split('');  for (let idx = 0; idx < arr.length - 1; idx++) {    if (arr[idx] == arr[idx + 1])      return true;  }​  return false;}​num = num + 1;while (consecutiveChars(num)) {  num++;}​

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
regex
loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	269905.5 Ops/sec
loop	111554.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Overview of the Benchmark

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a regular expression (regex) and a loop-based approach, in this case, a function that checks for consecutive characters in a string.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares two options:

Regex Approach: The first test case uses a regular expression to check if each character in the aux string is equal to the next one.
Loop-Based Approach: The second test case uses a loop-based approach, where a function checks if each pair of consecutive characters in the aux string are equal.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Regex Approach:
- Pros: Simple and concise code, can be easily adapted to different use cases.
- Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution.
Loop-Based Approach:
- Pros: Can be more efficient for large inputs since it avoids the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution. Additionally, it's easier to optimize loop-based approaches for performance.
- Cons: More complex code compared to the regex approach.

Library and Its Purpose

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the test() function used in the regex approach is a part of the built-in JavaScript String prototype, which provides a convenient way to perform string matching with regular expressions.

Special JS Feature or Syntax

The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features, such as:

Arrow functions: Used in the consecutiveChars function.
Template literals: Used to create the aux variable.
Loops: Used in both test cases.

However, there are no special ES6+ features like classes, generators, or async/await used in this benchmark.

Other Alternatives

Some alternative approaches that could be tested in a similar benchmark include:

Using a custom loop instead of the built-in for loop.
Using a different data structure, such as an array, to store consecutive characters.
Using a more efficient algorithm for checking consecutive characters, such as using a single pass through the string.

These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases to accurately reflect their performance characteristics.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a regular expression (`regex`) and a loop-based approach, in this case, a function that checks for consecutive characters in a string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Regex Approach**: The first test case uses a regular expression to check if each character in the `aux` string is equal to the next one.
2. **Loop-Based Approach**: The second test case uses a loop-based approach, where a function checks if each pair of consecutive characters in the `aux` string are equal.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Regex Approach**:
	+ Pros: Simple and concise code, can be easily adapted to different use cases.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution.
* **Loop-Based Approach**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for large inputs since it avoids the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution. Additionally, it's easier to optimize loop-based approaches for performance.
	+ Cons: More complex code compared to the regex approach.

**Library and Its Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the `test()` function used in the regex approach is a part of the built-in JavaScript String prototype, which provides a convenient way to perform string matching with regular expressions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features, such as:

* **Arrow functions**: Used in the `consecutiveChars` function.
* **Template literals**: Used to create the `aux` variable.
* **Loops**: Used in both test cases.

However, there are no special ES6+ features like classes, generators, or async/await used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be tested in a similar benchmark include:

1. Using a custom loop instead of the built-in `for` loop.
2. Using a different data structure, such as an array, to store consecutive characters.
3. Using a more efficient algorithm for checking consecutive characters, such as using a single pass through the string.

These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases to accurately reflect their performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

test regex vs loop (version: 0)

test regex vs loop

Comparing performance of: regex vs loop

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result