url1 = 'abc.com';
url2 = 'abc.com/';
url3 = 'abc.com///';
sanitizeUrl1 = function(url) {
return url.replace(/\/+$/, '');
}
sanitizeUrl2 = function(url) {
return url.replace(/[/]+$/, '');
}
sanitizeUrl1(url1);
sanitizeUrl1(url2);
sanitizeUrl1(url3);
sanitizeUrl2(url1);
sanitizeUrl2(url2);
sanitizeUrl2(url3);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
regex character | |
regex character group |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
regex character | 659385.9 Ops/sec |
regex character group | 638831.6 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark compares two approaches to sanitize URLs:
replace()
method with a regular expression that matches one or more forward slashes ([/]+
) at the end of the URL, effectively removing them.[ ]+
) instead of a regex pattern.Options Comparison
In this case, we have only two options being compared: regex character
and character group
. Both approaches achieve the same goal (removing forward slashes from the end of the URL), but with different syntax.
Pros and Cons
Library/Function Used
In this benchmark, the sanitizeUrl
function is used. It's not a built-in JavaScript library, but rather a custom implementation of URL sanitization. The function takes a URL string as input and returns a sanitized version by removing forward slashes from the end using either the regex character
or character group
approach.
JavaScript Feature/Syntax
The benchmark uses JavaScript's regex engine to execute the regular expression patterns. No special JavaScript features or syntax are used here, just standard JavaScript programming constructs like functions, variables, and string manipulation methods.
Other Alternatives
If you were to sanitize URLs in a production environment, other approaches could be considered:
replace()
method with a hardcoded forward slash character (/
) instead of a regex pattern.replace()
.\s+
(one or more whitespace characters) or [^\w]+
(any character except word characters).Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability. The regex character
and character group
approaches are both valid options, but the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and preferences.