Benchmark: regex 0001 + 2 - 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]+)/;
var REGEX_3 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([^ ,]*)/;

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")
REGEX_3
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
REGEX_3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark is designed to test the performance of regular expression (regex) patterns in JavaScript. The goal is to compare the execution speed of three different regex patterns: `REGEX_1`, `REGEX_2`, and `REGEX_3`.

**Regex Patterns**

1. **`REGEX_1`:**
```javascript
var REGEX_1 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[=:]"{0,1}([\\w\\s]{1,})/;
```
This regex pattern matches the string "cpf" with optional surrounding quotes and an optional colon and equals sign (`[:=]`). The parentheses around `[^ ,]*` capture one or more word characters (letters, numbers, or underscores) after the colon.

2. **`REGEX_2`:**
```javascript
var REGEX_2 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[=:]\\\"{0,1}([\\w\\s]+)/;
```
This regex pattern is similar to `REGEX_1`, but with a backslash (`\`) before the colon and equals sign (`[:=]`), indicating that they are escaped characters.

3. **`REGEX_3`:**
```javascript
var REGEX_3 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[=:]"{0,1}([^ ,]*)/;
```
This regex pattern is similar to `REGEX_1`, but with a different capture group for the character class `[^ ,]*`. This captures any single character that is not whitespace (`[^` represents "not", and `  ` represents whitespace).

**Library: None**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`REGEX_1`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to read and understand
		+ Fast execution speed
	* Cons:
		+ May not match all possible inputs (e.g., `cpf=12` without quotes)
2. **`REGEX_2`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Matches the string "cpf" with optional surrounding quotes and an optional colon and equals sign (`[:=]`)
		+ Fast execution speed
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as readable as `REGEX_1`
3. **`REGEX_3`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Matches the string "cpf" with an optional colon and equals sign (`[:=]`)
		+ Captures any single character that is not whitespace (`[^ ,]*`)
	* Cons:
		+ May be less readable than `REGEX_1` or `REGEX_2`

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to test regex patterns in JavaScript, other alternatives include:

* Using a library like [regex-tester](https://regex-tester.com/) or [regexr](https://regexr.com/)
* Using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha
* Writing unit tests for your code using a testing framework

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative depends on your specific use case and requirements.

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	9199638.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_2	6628388.5 Ops/sec
REGEX_3	5650891.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

regex 0001 + 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: REGEX_1 vs REGEX_2 vs REGEX_3

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

REGEX_1

REGEX_2

REGEX_3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):