Benchmark: regex 0001 + 5 - 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}([^ ,]*)/;
var REGEX_4 = /"{0,1}cpf"{0,1}[:=]"{0,1}([\w\s]{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")
REGEX_4
REGEX_4.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
REGEX_4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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	11211521.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_2	10987711.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_3	10814462.0 Ops/sec
REGEX_4	10218044.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests regular expression (regex) matching performance. The script preparation code defines four different regex patterns:

1. `REGEX_1`: Matches CPF (Brazilian Personal Identity Number) data with optional quotes and whitespace.
2. `REGEX_2`: Similar to `REGEX_1`, but without the `=` sign after the pattern.
3. `REGEX_3`: A simplified version of `REGEX_1` that removes unnecessary characters (`[:=]`) and uses a capture group for the CPF data.
4. `REGEX_4`: An even simpler version of `REGEX_1` that adds a non-capturing group (`(?:`) around the CPF data.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark definition is used to create four individual test cases, each testing one of the regex patterns defined above. The test cases are:

1. `REGEX_1`
2. `REGEX_2`
3. `REGEX_3`
4. `REGEX_4`

These test cases are likely used to compare the performance of different browsers and devices in executing these regex patterns.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of four different regex patterns:

1. **`REGEX_1`**: Matches CPF data with optional quotes and whitespace.
2. **`REGEX_2`**: Similar to `REGEX_1`, but without the `=` sign after the pattern.
3. **`REGEX_3`**: A simplified version of `REGEX_1` that removes unnecessary characters and uses a capture group for the CPF data.
4. **`REGEX_4`**: An even simpler version of `REGEX_1` that adds a non-capturing group around the CPF data.

These options are compared in terms of execution speed, which is likely measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Pros and Cons**

The pros and cons of each approach are:

1. **`REGEX_1`**: Pros: Easy to understand and write; Cons: Less efficient due to unnecessary characters.
2. **`REGEX_2`**: Pros: Simpler than `REGEX_1`, but may not match all CPF data formats; Cons: May lead to false positives or false negatives.
3. **`REGEX_3`**: Pros: More efficient and accurate than `REGEX_1` and `REGEX_2`; Cons: Requires a good understanding of regex syntax.
4. **`REGEX_4`**: Pros: Even more simplified than `REGEX_3`, but may not be as accurate; Cons: May lead to false positives or false negatives.

**Library**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries, but it's worth noting that some regex patterns might require additional libraries for accurate execution (e.g., UTF-8 support).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not appear to use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic regex pattern matching.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing regex performance could include:

1. **RegexBench**: A dedicated regex benchmarking tool.
2. **JSRegexp**: A JavaScript library for working with regular expressions, which could be used in a benchmarking scenario.
3. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Such as Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark, which provide a more comprehensive approach to benchmarking performance.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives would depend on the requirements and goals of the benchmarking effort.

Related benchmarks:

regex 0001 + 5 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: REGEX_1 vs REGEX_2 vs REGEX_3 vs REGEX_4

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

REGEX_1

REGEX_2

REGEX_3

REGEX_4

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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