Benchmark: test compiled vs regexp

Tests:

regexp
new RegExp("^(:?[^./]+\\.)*slack.com").test("sub1.sub2.slack.com/");
literal
/^(:?[^./]+\.)*slack.com/.test("sub1.sub2.slack.com/");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regexp
literal

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Options**

The provided benchmark definition represents two test cases that compare the performance of compiled regular expressions (regex) with literal regex strings in JavaScript. The options being compared are:

1. **Literal Regex String**: A string that uses the `test()` method to check if a given URL matches a specific pattern.
2. **Compiled Regex**: A regular expression object created using the `new RegExp()` constructor, which is then used to test URLs.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Literal Regex String**:
	+ Pros: Easy to read and understand, no need for compilation or caching.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to string parsing and method call overhead.
* **Compiled Regex**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster since the regex engine is optimized and cached, reducing overhead.
	+ Cons: Requires more memory to store the compiled regex pattern and can be more complex to read.

The choice between literal and compiled regex ultimately depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. If readability and simplicity are more important than raw speed, a literal regex string might be preferred. However, if performance is critical, compiling a regex pattern can provide significant gains in execution speed.

**Library**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `RegExp` constructor and the `test()` method are built-in JavaScript functions that do not require any additional dependencies.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that the use of `new RegExp()` and the `.test()` method is a common pattern in JavaScript for working with regular expressions.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you wanted to write your own benchmarking script using MeasureThat.net's API, you could consider the following alternatives:

1. Use a different regex syntax or escape characters.
2. Test multiple browsers or devices.
3. Compare performance with different optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization).
4. Include additional inputs or edge cases to test the robustness of your code.

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net already provides a solid framework for benchmarking JavaScript performance, so creating custom benchmarks might not add significant value.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regexp	7576572.5 Ops/sec
literal	36221776.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test compiled vs regexp (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regexp vs literal

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regexp

literal

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):