Benchmark: alpha-numeric string

HTML Preparation code:

var string = "isAlphaNumeric2021"

Script Preparation code:

var string = "isAlphaNumeric2021"

Tests:

Regex
/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)
charCodeAt
function isAlphaNumeric(str) { for (let i = 0; i < str.length; i++) { let code = str.charCodeAt(i) if (!(code > 47 && code < 58) && // numeric (0-9) !(code > 64 && code < 91) && // upper alpha (A-Z) !(code > 96 && code < 123)) { // lower alpha (a-z) return false } } return true } isAlphaNumeric(string)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Regex
charCodeAt

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance is crucial in software development, and JavaScript microbenchmarks like MeasureThat.net help identify bottlenecks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for two test cases:

1. **Regex**: The script checks if the input string `string` contains only alphanumeric characters using a regular expression (`/^[a-z0-9]+$/i.test(string)`).
2. **charCodeAt**: The script defines an `isAlphaNumeric` function that iterates over each character of the input string and checks its ASCII code to determine if it's alphanumeric (numeric, upper case letter, or lower case letter).

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare different approaches:

*   **Regex vs. charCodeAt**: Both methods check for alphanumeric characters in the input string.
*   **JavaScript Built-in Methods vs. Custom Implementation**: The `charCodeAt` approach implements a custom function to check for alphanumeric characters, whereas the Regex approach uses a built-in JavaScript method (`test()`).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

### charCodeAt Approach

Pros:

*   More readable code with clear logic.
*   Can be optimized for specific use cases.

Cons:

*   May have performance implications due to string iteration.
*   Requires manual ASCII code checking, which can be error-prone.

### Regex Approach

Pros:

*   Built-in JavaScript method simplifies code and reduces errors.
*   Often faster than custom implementation due to optimized regex engines.

Cons:

*   Code readability may suffer due to the use of complex regular expressions.
*   May not be suitable for all types of alphanumeric checks (e.g., Unicode characters).

**Library Usage**

None

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net supports a wide range of JavaScript features and syntax versions.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to measure performance or check for alphanumeric strings include:

*   Using a dedicated library like `isAlphanumeric` from the `lodash` package.
*   Implementing a custom function using a different algorithm (e.g., Unicode code point checking).
*   Utilizing Web Assembly (WASM) or other low-level optimization techniques.

Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the best solution depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.69 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Regex	8593835.0 Ops/sec
charCodeAt	8993151.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

alpha-numeric string (version: 0)

Check if a string contains only alpha-numeric characters.

Comparing performance of: Regex vs charCodeAt

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Regex

charCodeAt

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):