Benchmark: compare regex pattern

HTML Preparation code:

let message = "zx{cv}bn{m,asd}fghjk"

Script Preparation code:

let message = "zx{cv}bn{m,asd}fghjk"

Tests:

regex1
let message = "zx{cv}bn{m,asd}fghjk" const messageParts = message.split(/{([^}]+)}/); console.log(messageParts)
regex2
let message = "zx{cv}bn{m,asd}fghjk" const messageParts = message.split(/\{(.*?)\}/g); console.log(messageParts)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex1
regex2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` are identical, indicating that both tests have the same input string: `"zx{cv}bn{m,asd}fghjk"`. This input string contains two occurrences of a pattern wrapped in curly brackets (`{cv}` and `{m,asd}`). The goal is to extract these patterns from the original string.

**Options Compared**

There are two approaches being compared:

1. `regex1` (using the `split()` method with a plain regex pattern: `/\/\{(.*?)\}\//`)
2. `regex2` (using the `split()` method with a regular expression literal: `/\\{(.*?)\\}/g`)

**Pros and Cons**

**regex1**

* Pros:
	+ Simpler syntax
	+ Fewer dependencies, as it only uses built-in JavaScript methods
* Cons:
	+ May be slower due to the need for explicit regex creation and splitting
	+ Does not account for non-greedy behavior (i.e., `.*?`)

**regex2**

* Pros:
	+ Can handle non-greedy behavior using lazy quantifiers (`\\{.*?)\\}`)
	+ May be faster due to the use of a pre-built regex engine
* Cons:
	+ More complex syntax, requiring knowledge of regular expressions
	+ Additional dependencies (JavaScript's built-in regex support)

**Library Usage**

Both `regex1` and `regex2` rely on JavaScript's built-in string methods (`split()`) and regular expression engines. These libraries are part of the browser or runtime environment, so no additional downloads or imports are required.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Neither test case uses a special JavaScript feature or syntax that would be unusual for this benchmark. The use of curly brackets `{}` to delimit patterns is standard, and the `split()` method with regex is a common way to extract substrings in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could include:

* Using other string manipulation methods (e.g., `replace()`, `indexOf()`)
* Employing different algorithmic strategies for pattern extraction (e.g., using a state machine or finite automata)
* Utilizing external libraries or tools specifically designed for regex processing or pattern matching

Keep in mind that the benchmark's focus is on comparing the performance of two approaches, so alternative methods might not be directly relevant to this specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 12; M2102J20SG) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.41 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 101 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex1	58247.6 Ops/sec
regex2	59477.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

compare regex pattern (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex1 vs regex2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex1

regex2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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