Benchmark: regex 0001 + 4 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var REGEX_1 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([\w\s]{1,})/;
var REGEX_2 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\"{0,1}([\w\s]+)/;
var REGEX_3 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([^ ,]*)/;

Tests:

REGEX_1
REGEX_1.test("cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12")
REGEX_2
REGEX_2.test("cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12")
REGEX_3
REGEX_3.test("cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12,cpf=12")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
REGEX_1
REGEX_2
REGEX_3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a crucial task, especially when it comes to regular expressions (regex). The provided benchmark definition and test cases offer a great insight into the performance comparison of different regex patterns.

**Benchmark Definition**

The script preparation code provides three regex patterns:

1. `REGEX_1`: `\ "{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\"{0,1}([\\w\\s]{1,})/`
2. `REGEX_2`: `\ "{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\\\"{0,1}([\\w\\s]+)/`
3. `REGEX_3`: `\ "{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]\"{0,1}([^ ,]*)/`

These regex patterns are designed to match the CPF (Cadastro de Pessoas Físicas) format in Brazil.

**Options Comparison**

The options being compared are:

* `REGEX_1`: The original pattern with optional whitespace and the matched group capturing any word characters or whitespace.
* `REGEX_2`: A modified version of `REGEX_1` that uses an extended slash (`\`) to match literal forward slashes (`/`), but only when preceded by a non-literal forward slash. This is unnecessary, as the pattern already matches whitespace.
* `REGEX_3`: The most simplified version, which captures the CPF number in a single group without any optional whitespace.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. `REGEX_1`:
	* Pros: Matches all possible variations of the CPF format with optional whitespace and a captured group.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the unnecessary whitespace and the fact that it captures more characters than necessary.
2. `REGEX_2`:
	* Pros: None.
	* Cons: Uses an extended slash, which is not necessary for this pattern, making it less efficient.
3. `REGEX_3`:
	* Pros: More efficient by capturing the CPF number in a single group without optional whitespace.
	* Cons: May not match all possible variations of the CPF format.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark definition uses the built-in JavaScript function `test()` for each regex pattern, which is part of the String prototype. This function tests whether the regular expression matches the specified string and returns an object with properties indicating the success or failure of the test.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark definition.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing regex performance in JavaScript include:

* Using a dedicated library like Regexp.js, which provides more advanced features and optimizations.
* Utilizing web workers to run multiple tests concurrently, improving overall performance and reducing blocking time.
* Leveraging the `Intl` API, which provides standardized support for regex patterns across browsers.

Keep in mind that the specific approach and libraries used will depend on the project's requirements and the desired level of optimization.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
REGEX_1	10136053.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_2	10001486.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_3	9609164.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

regex 0001 + 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: REGEX_1 vs REGEX_2 vs REGEX_3

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

REGEX_1

REGEX_2

REGEX_3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):