Benchmark: WenApp Test2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var option1 = "import", option2 = "pepeTest", testR = new RegExp("[import|config]"), testC = ['import', 'config'];

Tests:

Multiple equal (false)
(option2 == "import" || option2 == "config")
Regexp (true)
/[import|config]/.test(option1)
Regexp (false)
/[import|config]/.test(option2)
Precocked Regexp (true)
testR.test(option1)
Precocked Regexp (false)
testR.test(option2)
Array (true)
testC.indexOf(option1) >= 0
Array (false)
testC.indexOf(option2) >= 0
Multiple equal (true)
(option1 == "import" || option1 == "config")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Multiple equal (false)
Regexp (true)
Regexp (false)
Precocked Regexp (true)
Precocked Regexp (false)
Array (true)
Array (false)
Multiple equal (true)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of JavaScript code in different scenarios, specifically:

1. Equality checks using `==` (Multiple equal)
2. Regular expression matching (`/pattern.test(value)`)
3. Array membership testing (`array.indexOf(value) >= 0`)

These tests are designed to measure the execution time of each test case across various browsers and platforms.

**Options being compared**

For each test case, two options are being compared:

1. **Precooked Regexp**: Using a precompiled regular expression object (`testR`) to perform the matching.
2. **Simple Regexp**: Using a simple regular expression string (`/[pattern]/.test(value)`) for the matching.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Equality checks (Multiple equal)**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	* Cons: May have performance implications due to string comparison overhead.
2. **Regular expression matching (Precooked Regexp vs Simple Regexp)**:
	* Precooked Regexp:
		+ Pros: Potential performance improvement due to precompilation of the regular expression pattern.
		+ Cons: May require additional setup and maintenance effort.
	* Simple Regexp:
		+ Pros: Easy to implement and understand, with minimal overhead.
		+ Cons: May have slower performance compared to precompiled regular expressions.
3. **Array membership testing**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for large arrays or datasets.
	* Cons: May be less readable or easier to optimize than other approaches.

**Libraries and frameworks**

No libraries or frameworks are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets, but some JavaScript features may rely on underlying libraries or framework-specific optimizations. For example:

* The ` RegExp` class is a built-in JavaScript class for working with regular expressions.
* The `.test()` method is part of the `RegExp` object.

**Special JS features and syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in this code snippet.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for testing these scenarios could include:

1. **Using a JavaScript benchmarking framework**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, js-benchmark, or PerfTest can provide more structured and controlled benchmarks.
2. **Implementing custom optimizations**: For specific use cases, developers might consider implementing custom optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization, to improve performance.
3. **Using a just-in-time (JIT) compiler**: Some browsers have JIT compilers that can optimize JavaScript code for better performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the project. MeasureThat.net's approach provides a simple and straightforward way to test these scenarios, but more complex or optimized solutions may be necessary for production environments.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.11.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Multiple equal (false)	5267060.5 Ops/sec
Regexp (true)	5438396.5 Ops/sec
Regexp (false)	5412283.0 Ops/sec
Precocked Regexp (true)	3700226.2 Ops/sec
Precocked Regexp (false)	3770755.8 Ops/sec
Array (true)	3979890.0 Ops/sec
Array (false)	4366889.5 Ops/sec
Multiple equal (true)	9968948.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

WenApp Test2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Multiple equal (false) vs Regexp (true) vs Regexp (false) vs Precocked Regexp (true) vs Precocked Regexp (false) vs Array (true) vs Array (false) vs Multiple equal (true)

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Multiple equal (false)

Regexp (true)

Regexp (false)

Precocked Regexp (true)

Precocked Regexp (false)

Array (true)

Array (false)

Multiple equal (true)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):