Benchmark: RegEx.test2 vs. String.includes vs. String.match

Script Preparation code:

var string = "ungigel.altgigel@vodafone.com";
var regex = /^\w+([\.-]?\w+)*@\w+([\.-]?\w+)*(\.\w{2,3})+$/
var regex2 = /^\w+([\.-]?[a-zA-Z0-9])+@([\.-]?[a-zA-Z0-9])+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,3}$/

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
RegEx2.test
regex2.test(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
RegEx2.test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that compare the performance of regular expression (regex) matching using different approaches:

1. `regex.test(string);`
2. `regex2.test(string);`

These benchmarks test the speed of executing a regex pattern on a fixed input string, which contains an email address.

**Comparison options**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **`regex.test(string);`**: This uses a traditional regex implementation, where the `^` and `$` anchors are included in the pattern. This is a common approach to matching strings from the beginning and end.
2. **`regex2.test(string);`**: This uses a modified regex implementation that removes the `^` and `$` anchors from the pattern. Instead, it relies on the fact that the input string starts with a word character (`\w+`) followed by an optional separator (`[\\.-]?`), then another word character or separator (`[\\.-]?\\w+)*`, and finally ends with a dot (`.`) and two to three more word characters (`[\\.-]?\\w+`). This approach is designed to avoid the overhead of anchors.

**Pros and cons**

* **Traditional regex implementation (`.test()`)**: Pros:
	+ Easy to understand and implement.
	+ Works well for most use cases.
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower due to the overhead of anchors (`^` and `$`).
	+ May not be optimal for very long strings or complex patterns.
* **Modified regex implementation (`.test(string)` with no anchors)**: Pros:
	+ Faster execution time, especially for longer strings or complex patterns.
	+ More efficient use of resources.
* Cons:
	+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if the input string is not as expected.
	+ May require more careful handling of edge cases.

**Library and purpose**

Neither `regex.test(string)` nor `regex2.test(string)` uses a specific JavaScript library. These are built-in methods provided by the JavaScript engine (V8 in this case) for executing regex patterns.

However, if we consider the modified regex implementation (`regex2.test(string)`), it's worth noting that some libraries (e.g., `jsregex` or `regex-try`) might implement similar optimizations or alternatives to traditional regex matching. But in this specific benchmark, the implementation is custom and not using a third-party library.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks. The only notable aspect is the use of raw strings (`var string = "..."`) to define the input strings, which helps avoid issues with escaped characters or Unicode normalization.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing regex performance might include:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: Tools like Benchmark.js, Regexp-benchmark, or jsperf can provide more comprehensive and flexible benchmarking capabilities.
2. **Custom implementations**: Writing custom JavaScript code to test different regex patterns and comparisons can offer more control over the benchmarking process.
3. **Third-party libraries**: Some libraries (e.g., `jsregex` or `regex-try`) might provide optimized regex matching implementations that could be used for benchmarks.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative way to compare the performance of traditional vs. modified regex matching approaches.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	6589758.5 Ops/sec
RegEx2.test	6103125.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test2 vs. String.includes vs. String.match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs RegEx2.test

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

RegEx2.test

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):