Benchmark: xfdadsf - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

email = 'b10102031@ntu.edu.tw'

Tests:

regexp
email.match(/.+(?=@)/)[0]
split
email.split('@', 1)[0]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regexp
split

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/110.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 110 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regexp	11027208.0 Ops/sec
split	10936774.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for developers to understand how different approaches impact their code's efficiency.

The provided JSON benchmark definition represents two test cases: regular expression (regexp) and string splitting (split).

**Test Case 1: Regexp**

* **What is tested:** The `email.match(/.+(?=@)/)[0]` expression is executed, which extracts the local part of an email address using a regular expression.
* **Options compared:**
	+ The regex pattern used (`.+(?=@)`): This pattern matches one or more characters (`.`) followed by any characters (`+`) until it reaches `@`. The `(?!@)` negative lookahead ensures that the `@` symbol is not matched.
	+ The use of the `match()` method: This method returns a match array, which contains the extracted local part in this case.
* **Pros and Cons:**
	+ Pros:
		- Efficient for extracting specific parts of an email address.
		- Can be customized with different regex patterns to suit various use cases.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly if the input string is empty or contains no `@` symbol.
* **Library:** The `String.prototype.match()` method is used, which is part of the JavaScript standard library. It's a built-in function that provides regular expression matching capabilities.

**Test Case 2: String Split**

* **What is tested:** The `email.split('@', 1)[0]` expression is executed, which splits an email address into two parts at the `@` symbol and returns the local part.
* **Options compared:**
	+ The split character (`@`): This is a simple and straightforward approach for splitting emails.
	+ The use of the `split()` method with an array index (1): This method splits the string at the specified character and returns an array of substrings.
* **Pros and Cons:**
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and easy to understand.
		- Works correctly even if the input string is empty or contains no `@` symbol.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient as regex-based approaches for complex email parsing tasks.
* **Library:** The `String.prototype.split()` method is used, which is part of the JavaScript standard library. It's a built-in function that provides basic string splitting capabilities.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**
None mentioned in this benchmark.

Other alternatives to consider:

1. Using an external regex library or tool, such as RegEx.js, for more complex regex patterns.
2. Utilizing other string manipulation libraries, like Lodash, which provide additional string methods and utilities.
3. Implementing custom parsing logic using JavaScript's built-in `String.prototype.replace()` method with a custom callback function.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project. The regexp test case is more suitable for cases where you need to extract specific parts from an email address, while the split test case is better suited for simple string splitting tasks.

Related benchmarks:

xfdadsf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regexp vs split

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regexp

split

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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