Benchmark: regex 0001 + 1 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var REGEX_1 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([\w\s]{1,})/;
var REGEX_2 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\"{0,1}([\w\s]+)/;

Tests:

REGEX_1
REGEX_1.test("cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12")
REGEX_2
REGEX_2.test("cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
REGEX_1
REGEX_2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested and compared in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is testing the performance of two regular expressions, `REGEX_1` and `REGEX_2`, which are used to match strings containing CPF numbers (a type of Brazilian identification number). The test cases involve running these regular expressions on a large string with multiple CPF numbers.

**Regular Expressions**

Both `REGEX_1` and `REGEX_2` are using the same pattern, but with some differences in how they're written:

```javascript
var REGEX_1 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([\\w\\s]{1,})"/;
var REGEX_2 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\\\"{0,1}([\\w\\s]+)/;
```

The main difference is in the way they're escaping double quotes (`"`). In `REGEX_1`, the backslash (`\`) is used to escape a single quote (because it's inside a string), whereas in `REGEX_2`, the forward slash (`/`) is used as an escape character, and then another backslash is used to escape the double quote.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark has two test cases:

1. **`REGEX_1`**: This test case uses the regular expression `REGEX_1` and runs it on a string containing 12 CPF numbers.
2. **`REGEX_2`**: This test case uses the regular expression `REGEX_2` and runs it on the same string as above.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show the execution per second (EPS) for each test case:

* `REGEX_1`: 10,770,930 EPS
* `REGEX_2`: 5,535,222.5 EPS

This suggests that `REGEX_1` is about twice as fast as `REGEX_2`.

**Library/Feature**

No external libraries are used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you need to match CPF numbers in JavaScript, you can use a simpler approach without regular expressions:

```javascript
function matchCpf(cpf) {
  const cpfRegex = /^([0-9]{3}\.){2}[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{2}$/;
  return cpfRegex.test(cpf);
}
```

This function uses a string pattern to match CPF numbers, which might be more efficient and easier to understand than regular expressions.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between `REGEX_1` and `REGEX_2` is relatively small, and you should consider other factors like readability and maintainability when choosing an approach.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
REGEX_1	10770930.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_2	5535222.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

regex 0001 + 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: REGEX_1 vs REGEX_2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

REGEX_1

REGEX_2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 27 days ago):