Benchmark: Field formatting

Script Preparation code:

var field = "event_data.param.parms[0]['hello']"

Tests:

regex
// replaces the start of the string with "['", if it starts with "[" str = field.replace(/^(?!\[)/, "['") // replaces the end of the string with "']", if it does ends with "]" .replace(/^(?<!\])(.*)(?<!\])$/, "$1']") // replaces the middle dots with "']['" if there is not "]" before the dot and no "[" after the dot .replace(/(?<!\])(?<=[^\]])\.(?=[^\[])(?!\[)/g, "']['") // replaces all "]." with "]['" .replace(/\]\./g, "]['") // replaces all ".[" with "'][" .replace(/\.\[/g, "'][") // replaces all "[" that are in the middle of the string, if there is no "]" before it .replace(/(?<=[^\]]+)\[(?=[^\[]+)/g, "']["); return str;
loops
if (field.startsWith('[')) { return field; } else { let arr = field.split("."); let newStr = ""; for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { if ( arr[i].includes('\[') ) { let [first, ...rest] = arr[i].split('['); rest = rest.join(''); newStr += `[\'${first}\'][${rest}`; } else { newStr += `[\'${arr[i]}\']`; } } return newStr; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex
loops

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	550674.4 Ops/sec
loops	1883868.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a microbenchmark that measures the performance of two different approaches for formatting a field in JavaScript.

The field is defined as `field = "event_data.param.parms[0]['hello']"`. This suggests that the field contains nested data with brackets, dots, and double quotes.

The script preparation code only includes the initialization of the `field` variable, which means that all the logic for formatting the field is implemented in the subsequent parts of the benchmark definition.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"regex "`**
This test case uses a regular expression to format the field. The script definition contains several replace functions that modify the `field` variable:
	* Replaces the start of the string with "['" if it starts with "["
	* Replaces the end of the string with "]'" if it ends with "]"
	* Replaces middle dots with "']['" if there is no "]" before the dot and no "[\" after the dot
	* Replaces all "\"]." with "\"]['"
	* Replaces all ".[" with "'["
	* Replaces all "[\" that are in the middle of the string, if there is no "]" before it

The test case uses a single function to return the formatted field.

2. **"loops"`**
This test case uses loops to format the field. The script definition contains an `if` statement that checks if the field starts with "[\". If it does, the function returns the original field. Otherwise, it splits the field into an array using ".", and then iterates over each element in the array:
	* For each element, it checks if it includes "\[". If it does, it extracts the first part of the element (before "[") and joins the rest of the element with "". The new string is built by concatenating `[\\'${first}\\'][${rest}` with the previous parts.
	* If the element does not include "\[", it simply appends `[\\'${arr[i]}\\']` to the new string.

The test case uses a single function to return the formatted field.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Regex approach (``)**

Pros:

* Can be more concise and efficient, especially for simple patterns
* Can handle complex patterns with groups and anchors

Cons:

* May be slower than loop-based approaches due to the overhead of regular expression matching
* May not perform well on large inputs or complex patterns

**Loop-based approach (``)**

Pros:

* Can be more predictable and easier to understand, especially for simple iterations
* Can handle large inputs and complex logic without significant performance impact

Cons:

* May be less concise than the regex approach
* Can be slower due to the overhead of loop iterations

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches assume that the input field is a valid JSON string with properly formatted brackets, dots, and double quotes.
* The regex approach may not handle edge cases such as unbalanced brackets or malformed strings.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches could include:

* Using a JSON parsing library to parse the field and then formatting it
* Using a templating engine like Handlebars or Mustache to render the field
* Using a string manipulation library like String.prototype.replace() or String.prototype.split()

However, these alternatives may not be suitable for all use cases and may introduce additional overhead.

**Library Used**

The benchmark definition uses JavaScript built-in functions and methods, such as `replace()` and `split()`, which are part of the standard library. There is no external library used in this benchmark.

Note that some test users might special JS features or syntax like async/await, destructuring, or arrow functions, but they are not relevant to the provided benchmark definition.

Related benchmarks:

Field formatting (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs loops

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

regex

loops

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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