Benchmark: RegEx.exec vs StrRaasdhakshjding.match

Script Preparation code:

var string = "2024-09-04";
var regex =/^(\d{4})-(0?[1-9]|1[012])-(0?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])$/g;

Tests:

regex.exec
regex.exec(string);
string.match
string.match(regex);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex.exec
string.match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its test cases to help you understand what's being measured.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of two approaches: using `RegExp.exec()` versus using `String.match()` with a regular expression.

**Regular Expression (RegEx)**

The RegEx in this benchmark is defined as:
```javascript
var regex = /^(\\d{4})-(0?[1-9]|1[012])-(0?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])$/g;
```
This regular expression matches a date string in the format `YYYY-MM-DD`. The `/g` flag at the end makes it match all occurrences of this pattern in the string, not just the first one.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **`regex.exec(string)`**: This test case calls `RegExp.exec()` on the provided `string` variable with the defined regular expression.
2. **`string.match(regex)`**: This test case uses the `match()` method of the `String` object to match the regular expression against the `string` variable.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches by measuring the number of executions per second for each test case on a specific browser configuration (Chrome 127 on Linux Desktop).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`regex.exec()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be used to extract multiple matches from a string.
		+ More flexible than `String.match()`, as it can handle more complex regular expressions.
	* Cons:
		+ Generally slower than `String.match()` due to the overhead of creating a regular expression engine.
2. **`string.match(regex)`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster than `regex.exec()` since it doesn't require creating a full-fledged regular expression engine.
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than `regex.exec()`, as it only returns the first match or `null` if no match is found.

**Library and Syntax**

There isn't any specific library used in this benchmark. The syntax is standard JavaScript, with the use of regular expressions and string methods like `exec()` and `match()`.

Since there are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark, I won't mention anything further.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to compare performance, here are a few options:

1. **`RegExp.test()`**: Similar to `String.match()`, but returns `null` if no match is found instead of an empty string.
2. **`Array.prototype.find()`**: A modern JavaScript method that can be used to find the first match in an array or string, similar to `string.match(regex)`.
3. **Custom implementation**: Depending on your specific use case, you might want to implement a custom function to compare two strings using regular expressions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics compared to the original benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex.exec	6104200.0 Ops/sec
string.match	4732532.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.exec vs StrRaasdhakshjding.match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex.exec vs string.match

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex.exec

string.match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):