Benchmark: RegExp constructor vs literal vs premade, constructing in function, inline the test 2

Script Preparation code:

const regex = new RegExp('^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$');
function getReConstructor() {
  return new RegExp(regex).test('132abc67219f019afe12901a');
}
function getReFactory() {
  return RegExp(regex).test('132abc67219f019afe12901a');
}
function getReLiteral() {
  return /^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a');
}
var premadeLiteral = /^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/;
function getRePremadeLiteral() {
  return premadeLiteral.test('132abc67219f019afe12901a');
}

Tests:

new RegExp()
getReConstructor()
RegExp() factory
getReFactory()
Literal
getReLiteral()
Literal premade
getRePremadeLiteral()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new RegExp()
RegExp() factory
Literal
Literal premade

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36 Edg/97.0.1072.62

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new RegExp()	1904295.8 Ops/sec
RegExp() factory	2670072.0 Ops/sec
Literal	6108107.5 Ops/sec
Literal premade	3218477.0 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 benchmark test cases and explain what's being tested, the pros and cons of different approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Test Cases:**

The benchmark consists of four individual test cases:

1. `getReConstructor()`: Tests creating a new RegExp object using the constructor function.
2. `getReFactory()`: Tests creating a new RegExp object using the factory method (i.e., invoking the `RegExp` function).
3. `getReLiteral()`: Tests using a literal regex pattern (`^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$`) to match a string.
4. `getRePremadeLiteral()`: Tests using a pre-made literal regex pattern (`const premadeLiteral = /^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/;`) to match a string.

**What's being tested:**

The benchmark is testing the performance of different ways to create and use RegExp objects in JavaScript. Specifically, it's comparing:

* Creating a new RegExp object using the constructor function (`new RegExp()`)
* Creating a new RegExp object using the factory method (i.e., invoking the `RegExp` function)
* Using a literal regex pattern
* Using a pre-made literal regex pattern

**Options and their pros and cons:**

1. **Constructor Function (`new RegExp()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more flexibility in creating custom regex patterns.
		+ Can be useful for complex regex patterns that require multiple options.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object and calling its constructor.
2. **Factory Method (`RegExp()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies code and reduces clutter compared to the constructor function approach.
		+ Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of creating a new object.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility in creating custom regex patterns, as it requires calling the `RegExp` function with specific options.
3. **Literal Regex Pattern (`^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of creating a new RegExp object.
		+ Simplifies code and reduces clutter compared to using a constructor function or factory method.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility in creating custom regex patterns, as it requires hardcoding specific options.
4. **Pre-made Literal Regex Pattern (`const premadeLiteral = /^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/;`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies code and reduces clutter compared to using a constructor function or factory method.
		+ Can be faster since it avoids the overhead of creating a new RegExp object.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility in creating custom regex patterns, as it requires hardcoding specific options.

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None of the test cases explicitly use special JavaScript features or syntax. However, they do utilize the `RegExp` function and its various methods (e.g., `test()`) which are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Using a regex engine:** Some libraries like `regex-engine.js` or `regex-optimizer.js` can optimize and improve performance for regular expression matching.
* **Utilizing native engine support:** Modern browsers and Node.js versions often have built-in support for optimizing RegExp objects using native engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome, SpiderMonkey in Firefox).
* **Using a profiling tool:** Tools like WebAssembly's `wasm` or Node.js's built-in `--trace` flag can help identify performance bottlenecks and optimize code accordingly.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup, configuration, or expertise to implement effectively.

Related benchmarks:

RegExp constructor vs literal vs premade, constructing in function, inline the test 2 (version: 0)

Testing performance when using a new RegExp object vs a literal regex

Comparing performance of: new RegExp() vs RegExp() factory vs Literal vs Literal premade

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new RegExp()

RegExp() factory

Literal

Literal premade

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):