Benchmark: Add HTTPS - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function usingRegex (stringToParse) {
  return stringToParse.replace(/(["'])(\/\/.*?)(["'])/gim, '$1https:$2$3')
}
function notUsingRegex (stringToParse) {
  if (stringToParse.indexOf('//') === 0) {
  	return 'https:' + stringToParse
  }
  return stringToParse
}

Tests:

RegEx
usingRegex('//google.com')
Simple
notUsingRegex('//google.com')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx
Simple

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition, test cases, and results for you.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches to add HTTPS to a given URL string:

1. **Using Regular Expressions (`usingRegex` function)**:
	* This approach uses a regular expression to match the protocol part of the URL (e.g., `//`) and replaces it with `https://`.
	* The `gim` flag at the end of the regex pattern ensures that all occurrences are replaced, not just the first one.
2. **Without Regular Expressions (`notUsingRegex` function)**:
	* This approach checks if the URL starts with `//` using the `indexOf()` method and returns a string literal `'https:'` followed by the original URL if it does, or the original URL otherwise.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Using Regular Expressions**: This approach is more efficient because it uses a built-in regex engine to perform the replacement, which is optimized for performance.
2. **Without Regular Expressions**: This approach is simpler and easier to understand but might be slower due to the overhead of string manipulation.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Using Regular Expressions:**

Pros:

* More efficient
* Can handle more complex URL patterns

Cons:

* May introduce additional dependencies (regex engine)
* Can be less readable for some developers

**Without Regular Expressions:**

Pros:

* Simpler and easier to understand
* No additional dependencies

Cons:

* Might be slower due to string manipulation overhead
* Less flexible in handling complex URL patterns

**Library Usage:**

In the provided benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers' regex engines are built-in features, so there's no external library dependency.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax:**

The `gim` flag at the end of the regex pattern is a special syntax in JavaScript regular expressions that stands for:

* `g`: Global flag (matches all occurrences)
* `i`: Case-insensitive flag
* `m`: Multi-line flag (allows `^` and `$` to match newlines)

This flag ensures that all occurrences are replaced, not just the first one.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to test other approaches, here are some alternatives:

1. Using a URL parsing library or API to manipulate the URL object.
2. Implementing a custom parser using JavaScript's built-in `URL` and `URI` APIs.
3. Using a different string replacement method, such as `replace()` with an array of replacements.

These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the new approach.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx	1875247.6 Ops/sec
Simple	11045994.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Add HTTPS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx vs Simple

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx

Simple

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):