Benchmark: WebApp Test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var option = "import", testR = new RegExp("[import|config]");

Tests:

Multiple equal
(option == "import" || option == "config")
Regexp
/[import|config]/.test(option)
Precocked Regexp
testR.test(option)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Multiple equal
Regexp
Precocked Regexp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format, which contains several key pieces of information:

1. **Name**: The name of the benchmark, "WebApp Test".
2. **Description**: An empty string, indicating that no description is provided for this benchmark.
3. **Script Preparation Code**: A JavaScript snippet that assigns a value to a variable `option` and defines a regular expression `testR`.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: An empty string, indicating that no HTML preparation code is needed.

The script preparation code sets up a JavaScript context where the `option` variable is assigned a string value ("import" or "config"). The regular expression `testR` is defined to match either of these values.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. **Multiple equal**: This test case checks if the condition `(option == "import" || option == "config")` evaluates to true for both possible values of `option`.
2. **Regexp**: This test case uses a regular expression (`/_[a-zA-Z]+/.test(option)`) to check if the string `option` matches any character class (e.g., `[abc]`, `\d`, etc.).
3. **Precocked Regexp**: This test case uses a pre-cooked regular expression (`/[import|config]/i.test(option)`), which is already compiled and can be executed directly.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark tests three options:

1. **Equal comparison**: The first test case (`Multiple equal`) checks if the `option` variable evaluates to true for both possible values.
2. **Regexp matching**: The second test case (`Regexp`) uses a regular expression to check if the string `option` matches any character class.
3. **Pre-cooked Regexp**: The third test case (`Precocked Regexp`) uses a pre-cooked regular expression to speed up execution.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Equal comparison**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and efficient.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for larger strings or more complex conditions.
2. **Regexp matching**:
	* Pros: Flexible and can handle more complex patterns.
	* Cons: Can be slower than equal comparison due to the overhead of regular expression compilation.
3. **Pre-cooked Regexp**:
	* Pros: Speeds up execution by pre-compiling the regular expression.
	* Cons: Requires additional setup time, which may not be suitable for all use cases.

**Libraries and special JS features**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, some modern JavaScript engines (e.g., V8) provide built-in support for regular expressions and character classes.

No special JavaScript features are used in this benchmark. The focus is on testing simple string comparison and regexp matching techniques.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to testing similar conditions might include:

1. **Using a more advanced testing library**: Depending on the specific requirements, a testing library like Jest or Mocha might provide additional features for testing complex conditions.
2. **Implementing custom equality checks**: Depending on the use case, implementing custom equality checks using techniques like structural hashing or memoization might be more efficient.
3. **Using JIT compilation or AOT optimization**: Modern JavaScript engines often use just-in-time (JIT) compilation or ahead-of-time (AOT) optimization to improve performance. This approach might provide better results for specific microbenchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.11.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Multiple equal	11950963.0 Ops/sec
Regexp	6483409.5 Ops/sec
Precocked Regexp	4343217.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

WebApp Test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Multiple equal vs Regexp vs Precocked Regexp

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Multiple equal

Regexp

Precocked Regexp

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):