Benchmark: Alphanumeric String test 1

HTML Preparation code:

var string = "isAlphaNumekjasdnfkjnasdkjfndskajnfkjasdnfkjnasdfkljnaskjdfnkasjdnfkjasndfkjnasdfkjnric091";

Script Preparation code:

var string = "isAlphaNumeric091";

Tests:

Regex
/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)
charCodeAt
function isAlphaNumeric(str) { for (let i = 0; i < str.length; i++) { let code = str.charCodeAt(i) if (!(code > 47 && code < 58) && // numeric (0-9) !(code > 64 && code < 91) && // upper alpha (A-Z) !(code > 96 && code < 123)) { // lower alpha (a-z) return false } } return true } isAlphaNumeric(string)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Regex
charCodeAt

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. **Regex**: This test case checks if a string only contains alpha-numeric characters using a regular expression (`/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)`).
2. **charCodeAt**: This test case checks if a string only contains alpha-numeric characters by iterating over each character and checking its ASCII code using `charCodeAt()`.

**Options Compared**

In the `charCodeAt` test case, two options are compared:

* The original implementation: It uses `charCodeAt()` to check if the character is within a valid range (0-47 for numeric, 64-91 for uppercase letters, and 96-123 for lowercase letters).
* A possible optimized version: This version is not shown in the benchmark definition, but it might involve using a different approach or data structure to improve performance.

**Pros and Cons**

The `charCodeAt` approach has some pros:

* It's a straightforward implementation that's easy to understand.
* It can be optimized for specific use cases.

However, it also has some cons:

* The optimization is not shown in the benchmark definition, so its effectiveness is unknown.
* This approach might be slower than regular expressions for certain inputs or edge cases.

The regular expression approach (`/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)`) has its own pros and cons:

Pros:

* It's a well-established and widely-used method for checking alpha-numeric characters.
* Regular expressions are often optimized by JavaScript engines.

Cons:

* It might be slower than the `charCodeAt` approach for very large inputs or specific edge cases.
* The regular expression engine might have overhead or limitations that affect performance.

**Library**

The `isAlphaNumeric()` function used in the `charCodeAt` test case is likely a custom implementation, but it's similar to the `test()` method of the `RegExp` class. If you wanted to use this function with the `RegExp` class, you could pass the regular expression (`/^[a-z0-9]+$/i`) and the string as arguments.

**Special JS Feature**

The `\x` notation used in some strings is a special syntax for representing Unicode characters using hexadecimal values (e.g., `\x4F` represents the uppercase letter "O"). This syntax is not universally supported, but it's often used in JavaScript to represent specific characters or escape other characters.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to checking alpha-numeric characters include:

* Using a library like `validate.js`, which provides a range of validation functions for strings.
* Implementing a custom algorithm using bitwise operations or character classification techniques.
* Using a natural language processing (NLP) library or framework, such as `nlpjs` or `spaCy`, which can provide more sophisticated string analysis capabilities.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific requirements of your application and the trade-offs you're willing to make between performance, complexity, and ease of use.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Regex	8161547.5 Ops/sec
charCodeAt	7474002.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Alphanumeric String test 1 (version: 0)

Check if a string only contains alpha-numeric characters.

Comparing performance of: Regex vs charCodeAt

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Regex

charCodeAt

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):