Benchmark: Test benchmark 123

Script Preparation code:

var string = "P400 Dynamic HSE 4dr SUV AWD w/Zadar Grey Premium Metallic Paint (3.0L 6cyl Twincharger gas/electric mild hybrid 8A)";
var regex = /^[\w\s\-.'"()#+!]+/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
function mimicRegex(string) { const allowedChars = new Set(`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789_\-.\'"()#+! `); let index = 0; for (let char of str) { if (!allowedChars.has(char)) { return str.substring(0, index); } index++; } return str; // Return the entire string if it matches the regex }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition and test cases are used to compare the performance of two different approaches: using a regular expression (RegEx) and creating a custom string filtering function.

**Benchmark Definition and Preparation Code**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. `RegEx.test`: Tests the performance of the `test()` method on a given string.
2. `String.includes`: Tests the performance of a custom string filtering function using the `includes()` method.

The script preparation code provides a sample string: `"P400 Dynamic HSE 4dr SUV AWD w/Zadar Grey Premium Metallic Paint (3.0L 6cyl Twincharger gas/electric mild hybrid 8A)"`. The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that no HTML-specific benchmarking is required.

**Comparison of Options**

Two options are compared:

1. **RegEx.test**: Uses the built-in `test()` method to search for a pattern in the string.
2. **String.includes**: Creates a custom function using a `Set` to filter out disallowed characters from the input string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**RegEx.test:**

Pros:

* Easy to implement and understand
* Built-in JavaScript method, which means it's well-supported across different browsers

Cons:

* May be slower than the custom implementation due to overheads in regular expression engine
* Limited control over the filtering process

**String.includes:**

Pros:

* Allows for fine-grained control over the filtering process
* Can be optimized for performance using techniques like caching and memoization

Cons:

* More complex implementation compared to RegEx.test
* May require additional setup and maintenance, especially if the filter logic changes frequently.

**Library Used (if any)**

None of the provided test cases use a dedicated library. However, if you were to create more complex benchmarking scenarios, libraries like `regex-escape` or `sanitize-html` might be useful for handling regular expressions or HTML sanitization, respectively.

**Special JavaScript Feature/ Syntax**

The custom implementation in `String.includes` uses a `Set` data structure and the `includes()` method. The use of `Set` is not specific to any particular feature, but it's an efficient way to store unique values. However, this test case does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create more complex benchmarking scenarios using MeasureThat.net, some alternatives might include:

* Using different types of data structures (e.g., arrays, objects) and data sources (e.g., JSON, CSV)
* Introducing additional complexities like asynchronous programming, callbacks, or promises
* Experimenting with browser-specific features like WebAssembly, Web Workers, or service workers

Keep in mind that the performance comparisons on MeasureThat.net are typically focused on vanilla JavaScript implementations, so exploring more advanced scenarios might require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	10124943.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	194543904.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test benchmark 123 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):