Benchmark: regex vs string functions2

Script Preparation code:


function domain1(x, wild = 'n', subs = 'o') { 
    return x.length < 256 && new RegExp(
        `^(?=(` + // capture
        (wild === 'o' && '(?:\\*\\.)?' || wild === 'r' && '(?:\\*\\.)' || '') + // start with *. if allowed/required
        `(?:[a-z\\d](?:[-a-z\\d]{0,61}[a-z\\d])?\\.)` + // [a-z0-9-] up to 63 chars, can't start or end w/ dash
        (subs === 'o' && '+' || subs === 'r' && '{2,}' || '') + // subdomains or not
        `(?!\\d+$)` + // tld can't be all digits
        `(?:[a-z\\d][-a-z\\d]{0,22}[a-z\\d])` + // tld up to 24 chars
        `))\\1$` // end capture
    , 'i').test(x);
}

function domain2(dom) {
    if(dom.indexOf('..')>0) return false;
    if(dom.indexOf('-.')>0) return false;
    if(dom.indexOf('.-')>0) return false;
    if(dom[0] === '-' || dom[dom.length - 1] === '-') return false;
    const parts = dom.split('.');
    const last = parts.pop();
    if(last.length > 22 || /^\d+$/.test(last)) {
        return false;
    }
    const valid = /^[a-z0-9\-]+$/i;
    return parts.every(p => {
        return p.length < 63 && valid.test(p);
    });
}

Tests:

domain 1
domain1('eefsdsdfsdfsdfs.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com')
domain 2
domain2('eefsdsdfsdfsdfs.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
domain 1
domain 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
domain 1	998184.6 Ops/sec
domain 2	1622943.8 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 benchmarking test cases and explain what's being tested, the options being compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents two JavaScript functions:

1. `domain1(x, wild = 'n', subs = 'o')`: This function takes a string `x` as input and returns `true` if it matches a specific pattern for a domain name. The pattern is defined using a regular expression.
2. `domain2(dom)`: This function takes a string `dom` as input and returns `true` if it matches a specific pattern for a domain name.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two functions on different inputs. Specifically, it's testing:

* The use of regular expressions (in `domain1`) vs. simple string manipulation (in `domain2`)
* The impact of using special characters in the input strings (`eefsdsdfsdfsdfs.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com`)

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Regular expressions (in `domain1`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Can match complex patterns with high precision
		+ Can be optimized for performance using techniques like caching and memoization
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow due to the overhead of compiling and executing the regular expression engine
		+ May require more memory due to the complexity of the pattern
2. **Simple string manipulation (in `domain2`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster than using regular expressions due to fewer computational overheads
		+ May be more suitable for simple patterns that don't require high precision
	* Cons:
		+ May not match complex patterns as accurately as regular expressions
		+ Requires manual implementation of the pattern-matching logic

**Other considerations**

* The benchmark is using a relatively small input string (`eefsdsdfsdfsdfs.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com.fdsfsddfsdfsdfs.dfsdfsdfsfdsdfs.sdffdsdfssdfdffdssdfdf.dsdfsfsddfsx.com`) which might not accurately represent the performance characteristics of these functions on larger inputs.
* The benchmark is using Chrome 118 as the browser, which may have optimized the JavaScript engine and its regular expression handling to improve performance.

**Library**

In this case, there is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may use internal libraries or frameworks for string manipulation and regular expression handling, which could affect the performance characteristics of these functions.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to testing this type of benchmarking scenario include:

* Using a different programming language or paradigm (e.g., Python, C++, etc.) to compare performance
* Testing with larger input strings to simulate real-world use cases
* Using different browsers or devices to test platform-specific behavior
* Adding more complex patterns or edge cases to the input strings to increase the difficulty of the benchmark

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives depends on the specific goals and requirements of the benchmarking exercise.

Related benchmarks:

regex vs string functions2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: domain 1 vs domain 2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

domain 1

domain 2

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):