Benchmark: RegEx vs For Loop (Optimized)

HTML Preparation code:

var string = "passw)odas4gsdfsdf";

Script Preparation code:

var string = "passw)odas4gsdfsdf";

Tests:

RegEx
let isPasswordValid = false; const number = new RegExp('(?=.*[0-9])'); isPasswordValid = number.test(string);
For Loop
let isPasswordValid = true; let i = 0; let len = string.length - 1; while (isPasswordValid) { if (i >= len) break; let code = string.charCodeAt(i); if (code <= 48 || code >= 57) isPasswordValid = false; i++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx
For Loop

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to validate if a string contains a digit: using regular expressions (RegEx) versus a for loop.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **RegEx**: This test case uses a RegEx pattern to check if the input string `string` contains any digits. The pattern `(?=.*[0-9])` is used, which is an optimized version of the traditional `^[0-9]+$` pattern. However, this pattern is not strictly accurate, as it only checks if there's at least one digit anywhere in the string, regardless of its position.
2. **For Loop**: This test case uses a while loop to iterate through each character of the input string and checks if it's a digit using `charCodeAt()`. The loop continues until no more digits are found.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **RegEx**: Uses regular expressions to validate if a string contains a digit.
2. **For Loop**: Iterates through each character of the input string and checks if it's a digit using `charCodeAt()`.

**Pros and Cons**

**RegEx**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient, especially for large strings
* Concise and easy to read code

Cons:

* May not be accurate for all edge cases (e.g., non-ASCII characters)
* Can be slower than the for loop approach for small strings due to regex engine overhead

**For Loop**

Pros:

* More accurate, as it checks each character individually
* Can be faster for small strings due to fewer function calls and less overhead

Cons:

* Inefficient for large strings, as it iterates through each character individually
* Requires more code and is less concise than the RegEx approach

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses the `RegExp` object, which is a part of the JavaScript standard library. It provides an efficient way to match patterns in strings.

There are no special JS features used in this benchmark that would require a deep understanding of advanced JavaScript concepts.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to improve or modify the benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Use a faster regex engine**: Some browsers have faster regex engines than others. You could test different browsers with optimized regex engines to see if it makes a difference.
2. **Use a more accurate RegEx pattern**: The current RegEx pattern `(?=.*[0-9])` is not strictly accurate. You could try using a pattern like `^[^a-zA-Z]*[0-9][^a-zA-Z]*$` to match the entire string, or use a more complex pattern like `\d+` to match one or more digits.
3. **Use a different validation approach**: Instead of using RegEx or a for loop, you could use a library like `moment.js` to parse dates and extract numbers from strings.
4. **Test with other input types**: Currently, the benchmark only tests with strings containing digits. You could test with strings containing letters, special characters, or whitespace to see how it performs in different scenarios.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 24 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx	3507119.5 Ops/sec
For Loop	7861111.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx vs For Loop (Optimized) (version: 0)

-

Comparing performance of: RegEx vs For Loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

RegEx

For Loop

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):