Usename regex

[Mick Walker]

Hi All,

I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I have no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before. And the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page itself.

So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can compare the
text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a error, if
its valid proceed.

Thanks.

 

[Jesse Houwing]

Hello Mick,

Hi All,

I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering
usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I have no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before. And
the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page itself.

So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can compare
the text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a
error, if its valid proceed.

Thanks.

You can indeed use Regex for this. It's actually a simple expression:

because a regex describes the input from left to right you need to account
for all possible locations of the single '_' you're allowing.

It would be even simpler to just allow underscores as a rule.

The expression comes down to this:

^(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

^ First make sure we're matching from the beginning of the input.
( We have multiple options
_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ first find the underscore, followed by an unlimited number
of alphanumeric characters
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_? find an unlimited number of alphanumeric characters followed
by an optional underscore
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ find an unlimited numner of alphanumeric
characters followed by an underscore, followed by more characters.
) No more options
$ End of the string.

Now add a Regex validator to your page. Set the expression to the expression
above and the control to validate to your textbox and you're all done.

Jesse

 

[Guest]

Hello Mick,

Hi All,

I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering
usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I have no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before. And
the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page itself.

So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can compare
the text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a
error, if its valid proceed.

Thanks.

You can indeed use Regex for this. It's actually a simple expression:

because a regex describes the input from left to right you need to account
for all possible locations of the single '_' you're allowing.

It would be even simpler to just allow underscores as a rule.

The expression comes down to this:

^(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

^ First make sure we're matching from the beginning of the input.
( We have multiple options
_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ first find the underscore, followed by an unlimited number
of alphanumeric characters
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_? find an unlimited number of alphanumeric characters followed
by an optional underscore
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ find an unlimited numner of alphanumeric
characters followed by an underscore, followed by more characters.
) No more options
$ End of the string.

Now add a Regex validator to your page. Set the expression to the expression
above and the control to validate to your textbox and you're all done.

Jesse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just can add if the underscore is allowed in the middle of a word
only (I think which is usual for usernames), then expression can be as

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

 

[Jesse Houwing]

Hello Alexey,

Hello Mick,

Hi All,

I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering
usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I have
no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before. And
the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page itself.
So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can compare
the text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a
error, if its valid proceed.

Thanks.

You can indeed use Regex for this. It's actually a simple expression:

because a regex describes the input from left to right you need to
account for all possible locations of the single '_' you're allowing.

It would be even simpler to just allow underscores as a rule.

The expression comes down to this:

^(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

^ First make sure we're matching from the beginning of the input.
( We have multiple options
_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ first find the underscore, followed by an unlimited
number
of alphanumeric characters
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_? find an unlimited number of alphanumeric characters
followed
by an optional underscore
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ find an unlimited numner of
alphanumeric
characters followed by an underscore, followed by more characters.
) No more options
$ End of the string.
Now add a Regex validator to your page. Set the expression to the
expression above and the control to validate to your textbox and
you're all done.

Jesse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just can add if the underscore is allowed in the middle of a word
only (I think which is usual for usernames), then expression can be as

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

This regex *forces* the username to contain a '_'

And don't use this:
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

As it will cause excessive backtracking and use lot's of CPU under the wrong
circumstances.


Jess

 

[Guest]

Hello Alexey,

On Aug 1, 8:04 pm, Jesse Houwing <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hello Mick,
Hi All,
I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering
usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I have
no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before. And
the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page itself.
So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can compare
the text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a
error, if its valid proceed.
Thanks.
You can indeed use Regex for this. It's actually a simple expression:
because a regex describes the input from left to right you need to
account for all possible locations of the single '_' you're allowing.
It would be even simpler to just allow underscores as a rule.
The expression comes down to this:
^(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
^ First make sure we're matching from the beginning of the input.
( We have multiple options
_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ first find the underscore, followed by an unlimited
number
of alphanumeric characters
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_? find an unlimited number of alphanumeric characters
followed
by an optional underscore
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ find an unlimited numner of
alphanumeric
characters followed by an underscore, followed by more characters.
) No more options
$ End of the string.
Now add a Regex validator to your page. Set the expression to the
expression above and the control to validate to your textbox and
you're all done.
Jesse- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I just can add if the underscore is allowed in the middle of a word
only (I think which is usual for usernames), then expression can be as

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

This regex *forces* the username to contain a '_'

And don't use this:
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

As it will cause excessive backtracking and use lot's of CPU under the wrong
circumstances.

Jesse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry, it's just a test post: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

 

[Guest]

Hello Alexey,

On Aug 1, 8:04 pm, Jesse Houwing <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello Mick,
Hi All,
I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering
usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I have
no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before. And
the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page itself.
So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can compare
the text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a
error, if its valid proceed.
Thanks.
You can indeed use Regex for this. It's actually a simple expression:
because a regex describes the input from left to right you need to
account for all possible locations of the single '_' you're allowing.
It would be even simpler to just allow underscores as a rule.
The expression comes down to this:
^(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
^ First make sure we're matching from the beginning of the input.
( We have multiple options
_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ first find the underscore, followed by an unlimited
number
of alphanumeric characters
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_? find an unlimited number of alphanumeric characters
followed
by an optional underscore
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ find an unlimited numner of
alphanumeric
characters followed by an underscore, followed by more characters.
) No more options
$ End of the string.
Now add a Regex validator to your page. Set the expression to the
expression above and the control to validate to your textbox and
you're all done.
Jesse- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just can add if the underscore is allowed in the middle of a word
only (I think which is usual for usernames), then expression can be as
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

This regex *forces* the username to contain a '_'

And don't use this:
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

As it will cause excessive backtracking and use lot's of CPU under the wrong
circumstances.

Jesse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry, it's just a test post: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hmm, I think I deleted by mistake the (?) from the expression. It's a
silly typo, sorry about this

But I don't get what's wrong with the following expression

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

basically, it's a copy of your expression, I just deleted first two
parts from it.

 

[Jesse Houwing]

Hello Alexey,

Hello Alexey,

On Aug 1, 8:04 pm, Jesse Houwing <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hello Mick,

Hi All,

I would like to know how I can limit users to only registering
usernames
which have alphanumberic characters and one underscore.
From what I understand is I can use a regex to do this. But I
have
no
idea how to do it. I have only used a customfieldvalidor before.
And
the
reason I cant do it now is because of the design of the page
itself.
So basically I need to know how, upon a button click, I can
compare
the text entered in a textbox, to a regex, if its invalid throw a
error, if its valid proceed.
Thanks.

You can indeed use Regex for this. It's actually a simple
expression:

because a regex describes the input from left to right you need to
account for all possible locations of the single '_' you're
allowing.

It would be even simpler to just allow underscores as a rule.

The expression comes down to this:

^(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

^ First make sure we're matching from the beginning of the
input.
( We have multiple options
_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ first find the underscore, followed by an
unlimited
number
of alphanumeric characters
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_? find an unlimited number of alphanumeric
characters
followed
by an optional underscore
| OR....
[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+ find an unlimited numner of
alphanumeric
characters followed by an underscore, followed by more characters.
) No more options
$ End of the string.
Now add a Regex validator to your page. Set the expression to the
expression above and the control to validate to your textbox and
you're all done.
Jesse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just can add if the underscore is allowed in the middle of a word
only (I think which is usual for usernames), then expression can be
as

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

This regex *forces* the username to contain a '_'

And don't use this:
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
As it will cause excessive backtracking and use lot's of CPU under
the wrong circumstances.

Jesse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry, it's just a test post: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hmm, I think I deleted by mistake the (?) from the expression. It's a
silly typo, sorry about this

But I don't get what's wrong with the following expression

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

basically, it's a copy of your expression, I just deleted first two
parts from it.

The problem is in the fact that it allows for excessive backtracking. Think
of a string, preferably very long that contains only alphanumeric characters,
but end in a # sign. This regex will try every combination of the first and
the second part until all options are exhausted. This can take quite a while.

I'll try to explain it more graphically so that it's easier to understand.

Usually what would happen is this:

input: aaaaa#
regex: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

the first part will try to match and captures
aaaaa

Then the parser finds the # sign, it's neither a _ so it skips that, nor
another [a-z0-9A-Z], so it backtracks one position.
aaaa

Now the second [a-zA-Z0-9]+ can match the last a
aaaa|a (| is to show which part of the regex matched what).

But now it still cannot match the # at the end. So the engine backtracks
one more position and the second part matches the last two a's.
aaa|aa

Still no match...
aa|aaa

Still no match
a|aaaa

It cannot backtrack further. The first [a-aA-Z0-9] isn't optional. The engine
finally concludes that no match can be found.

Remember that when the input gets longer and longer the amount of backtracking
increases. This is especially bad if there's more regex to come after that...

Now back to my regular expression.

I've split the problem into three possible solutions. The enige will try
each solution and if it fails tries the next.

So again:

input: aaaaa#
regex: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

The engine first tries the first part of the regex [a-zA-Z0-9]+

It captures
aaaaa

but then fails. There's still another character in the input and it's not
a _. There's no need for backtracking. There's no other solution possible.
Th efirst part of the regex is ignored. So it tries the second part

It captures nothing, the string doesn't start with a _

It tries the last part It again captures aaaaa, but then fails because there's
no _.

The end result is the samen: No match.

But my regex took only 3 attempts to find that out. And regardless of the
length of the input will keep doing 3 tries.

Yours took 5 tries and will take an extra try for every possible good character
at the start of the string. So if you have an input of 100 characters it
would do 100 passes.

I hope this helps you in understanding why your regex has some issues

Jesse

 

[Guest]

The problem is in the fact that it allows for excessive backtracking. Think
of a string, preferably very long that contains only alphanumeric characters,
but end in a # sign. This regex will try every combination of the first and
the second part until all options are exhausted. This can take quite a while.

Jesse,

I understand now why I forget about the (?) in my first post. I
misread your code. I thought you use the (?) in the third part of your
expression to find only one (_). I'm sorry I just can't believe I was
so inattentive.

Regarding backtracking. I understand now the difference between the
two expressions, and I believe what you are saying, but I did a small
quick test of how our expressions work for short and very long strings
in reality and it looks like there is no big difference.

Here's the result of the test

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular expression benchmark
----------------------------
Regular expressions : 2
Test strings : 3
Iterations : 10000
Total regex calls : (10000 * 3 * 2) = 60000

RE: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
61 16,759 0,0061 0,0031 0,1768 'aaaaa#'
101 16,778 0,0101 0,0067 0,1771 'some_realusername'
178 16,786 0,0178 0,0137 0,178
'verylongusernamestringwithnumbersandlet
tersandwithoutunderscoresymbolbutveryveryverylong1234verylong'
RE: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
51 3,251 0,0051 0,0039 0,038 'aaaaa#'
82 3,255 0,0082 0,007 0,038 'some_realusername'
161 3,263 0,0161 0,0142 0,047
'verylongusernamestringwithnumbersandlet
tersandwithoutunderscoresymbolbutveryveryverylong1234verylong'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see sometimes my expression is quicker

The code of the benchmark tool is here
http://www.codinghorror.com/files/code/regexbenchmark.zip

I compiled it in .NET2 and ran without debugger. If I run the
benchmark 4-5 times very often I see that my expression has the best
reported score, even for a long strings. So, I would say that

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

is better, because it's shorter

 

[Guest]

On Aug 1, 11:42 pm, Jesse Houwing <[email protected]>
wrote:

A javascript-based test looks similar to one I did in VB.NET

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
go=function() {
//var re = new RegExp('^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-
zA-Z0-9]+)$');
var re = new RegExp('^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$');
start = new Date();
for (var i=0; i<=10000; i++)
{
x=window.document.getElementById('txtUser').value.match(re);
}
end = new Date();
forLoopTime = end-start;
alert(forLoopTime + 'ms');
return false;
}
</SCRIPT>

</HEAD>
<BODY>
<form id="form1" runat="server">
<input type=text ID="txtUser">
<input type=submit OnClick="javascript:return go();" value=test>
</form>
</BODY>
</HTML>

 

[Jesse Houwing]

Hello Alexey,

The problem is in the fact that it allows for excessive backtracking.
Think of a string, preferably very long that contains only
alphanumeric characters, but end in a # sign. This regex will try
every combination of the first and the second part until all options
are exhausted. This can take quite a while.

Jesse,

I understand now why I forget about the (?) in my first post. I
misread your code. I thought you use the (?) in the third part of your
expression to find only one (_). I'm sorry I just can't believe I was
so inattentive.

Regarding backtracking. I understand now the difference between the
two expressions, and I believe what you are saying, but I did a small
quick test of how our expressions work for short and very long strings
in reality and it looks like there is no big difference.

Here's the result of the test

----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Regular expression benchmark
----------------------------
Regular expressions : 2
Test strings : 3
Iterations : 10000
Total regex calls : (10000 * 3 * 2) = 60000
RE: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
61 16,759 0,0061 0,0031 0,1768 'aaaaa#'
101 16,778 0,0101 0,0067 0,1771 'some_realusername'
178 16,786 0,0178 0,0137 0,178
'verylongusernamestringwithnumbersandlet
tersandwithoutunderscoresymbolbutveryveryverylong1234verylong'
RE: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
51 3,251 0,0051 0,0039 0,038 'aaaaa#'
82 3,255 0,0082 0,007 0,038 'some_realusername'
161 3,263 0,0161 0,0142 0,047
'verylongusernamestringwithnumbersandlet
tersandwithoutunderscoresymbolbutveryveryverylong1234verylong'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

As you can see sometimes my expression is quicker

The code of the benchmark tool is here
http://www.codinghorror.com/files/code/regexbenchmark.zip
I compiled it in .NET2 and ran without debugger. If I run the
benchmark 4-5 times very often I see that my expression has the best
reported score, even for a long strings. So, I would say that

^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

is better, because it's shorter

Yours is probably faster I believe that, less alternatives for correct strings.
but have you tried a very long incorrect input? Something like (the longer
the better)

aaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666&

If the textbox in question is limited to say 16 characters you'd probably
never trigger the problem, but a hacker could just bypass the length of the
textbox and supply a very very long string and if he'd send such strings
in quick succession he'd essentially cause a denial of service.

There are some optimizations that are possible for thsi regex if you'd want
to try them. The enige will try the first option first, if that fails it
will try the second. Keeping that in mind, the order of expressions is of
importance. Say that you usually have no '_' in usernames, but if they're
there you mostly have them somewhere in between. Then you'd have to change
the order to improve performance.
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

Also my expression allows an underscore both at the start, the end and in
between. Yours only covers the last option. I would probably rewrite my expression
to this to make it do the same as your expression. It is almost as short,
but does not allow excessive backtracking.
^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$

And then there is the option to handle upper and lower case characters in
the character groups, or in a regexoption. I'm actually not sure which is
faster, but it's worth a try... Wrapping the whole expression with (?i: ...
) should do the trick. all [a-zA-Z] can then be replaced with just [a-z]
^(?i:....)$

And finally to suppress grouping & capturing we can improve performance by
replacing the normal ( ... ) with (?: ... ).

To optimize your expression further you could completely remove the ( ...
) they have no use.

So a fair showdown of expressions would be:
Yours: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
Mine: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$

Or with case insensitivity:
Yours: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+_?[a-z0-9]+)$
Mine: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+(?:_[a-z0-9]+)?)$

I ran it using the same tool you used on my Opteron 185 (2x2.6Ghz) under
Windows Vista x64. I made a small change to the code of the benchmark though,
the original benchmark takes the Compile hit in the results. I did one call
using the specific expression outside of the loop so that the results can
be compared more easily.

Input's used:
0 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",

1 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa", _
2 "aaaa", _
3 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%",
_
4 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%", _
5 "aaaa%", _
6 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
_
7 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa", _
8 "aa_aa", _
9 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%",
_
10 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%", _
11 "aa_aa%" _

Results:
Regular expression benchmark
----------------------------
Regular expressions : 4
Test strings : 12
Iterations : 10000
Total regex calls : (10000 * 12 * 4) = 480000

Pass 1, measure every regex as it runs (slower due to timing code)...
------------------------------------------
Regular expression library: System.Text.RegularExpressions

Total time taken: 58905
------------------------------------------
Pass 2, measure total time only..
------------------------------------------
Regular expression library: System.Text.RegularExpressions

RE: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
110 0,365 0,011 0,0101 0,0073 '0'
145 0,387 0,0145 0,0134 0,0088 '1'
167 0,391 0,0167 0,0154 0,0095 '2'
17804 10,683 1,7804 1,6751 0,3004 '3'
18291 10,756 1,8291 1,7206 0,3042 '4'
18319 10,78 1,8319 1,7231 0,3046 '5'
18429 10,791 1,8429 1,7335 0,3055 '6'
18464 10,794 1,8464 1,7365 0,3058 '7'
18487 10,797 1,8487 1,7388 0,3059 '8'
18741 10,842 1,8741 1,7625 0,3079 '9'
18891 10,856 1,8891 1,7762 0,3129 '10'
18918 10,88 1,8918 1,7784 0,3135 '11'
RE: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
107 0,229 0,0107 0,0101 0,0049 '0'
141 0,484 0,0141 0,0134 0,0076 '1'
163 0,562 0,0163 0,0154 0,0085 '2'
512 1,015 0,0512 0,0489 0,0166 '3'
585 1,022 0,0585 0,0559 0,018 '4'
611 1,025 0,0611 0,0584 0,0185 '5'
715 1,035 0,0715 0,0682 0,0204 '6'
749 1,038 0,0749 0,0715 0,0207 '7'
773 1,604 0,0773 0,0735 0,0258 '8'
1010 1,634 0,101 0,0961 0,0299 '9'
1072 1,64 0,1072 0,102 0,0304 '10'
1097 1,643 0,1097 0,1045 0,0305 '11'
RE: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+_?[a-z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
241 2,098 0,0241 0,0204 0,0231 '0'
299 2,108 0,0299 0,0254 0,0241 '1'
325 2,11 0,0325 0,0279 0,0242 '2'
34692 17,108 3,4692 3,0303 0,4154 '3'
35653 17,191 3,5653 3,113 0,4274 '4'
35694 17,195 3,5694 3,1163 0,4284 '5'
35932 17,215 3,5932 3,137 0,4298 '6'
35990 17,22 3,599 3,1417 0,4304 '7'
36018 17,223 3,6018 3,1443 0,4305 '8'
36505 17,29 3,6505 3,1867 0,4337 '9'
36782 17,493 3,6782 3,2107 0,438 '10'
36815 17,496 3,6815 3,2138 0,4387 '11'
RE: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+(?:_[a-z0-9]+)?)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
236 1,798 0,0236 0,0201 0,0195 '0'
291 1,811 0,0291 0,0251 0,0201 '1'
320 4,578 0,032 0,0274 0,0497 '2'
946 4,635 0,0946 0,0827 0,0546 '3'
1067 4,645 0,1067 0,093 0,0611 '4'
1097 4,648 0,1097 0,0958 0,0613 '5'
1333 4,669 0,1333 0,1162 0,0631 '6'
1388 4,674 0,1388 0,1212 0,0633 '7'
1415 4,677 0,1415 0,1235 0,0634 '8'
1791 4,711 0,1791 0,1576 0,0654 '9'
1890 4,989 0,189 0,1659 0,0814 '10'
1920 4,999 0,192 0,1687 0,0816 '11'
Total time taken: 58088
------------------------------------------
Press ENTER to continue...

I wouldn't have thought that case insensitivity would make such a big difference.
Learned something again today .

My expression, without the case insensitivity is clearly the fastest:
RE: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$

So I'd say this one is better, as it's only 3 characters longer than yours,
but much faster and without a possible DoS problem.

But as the original post didn't say that the underscore could only be between
alphanumeric characters. It said that there was one '_' allowed in teh string
(read anywhere in the string) my first expression best covers the problem.
^(?:[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

Jesse

 

[Jesse Houwing]

Hello Jesse,

Hello Alexey,

The problem is in the fact that it allows for excessive
backtracking. Think of a string, preferably very long that contains
only alphanumeric characters, but end in a # sign. This regex will
try every combination of the first and the second part until all
options are exhausted. This can take quite a while.

Jesse,

I understand now why I forget about the (?) in my first post. I
misread your code. I thought you use the (?) in the third part of
your expression to find only one (_). I'm sorry I just can't believe
I was so inattentive.

Regarding backtracking. I understand now the difference between the
two expressions, and I believe what you are saying, but I did a small
quick test of how our expressions work for short and very long
strings in reality and it looks like there is no big difference.

Here's the result of the test

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------
Regular expression benchmark
----------------------------
Regular expressions : 2
Test strings : 3
Iterations : 10000
Total regex calls : (10000 * 3 * 2) = 60000
RE: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
61 16,759 0,0061 0,0031 0,1768 'aaaaa#'
101 16,778 0,0101 0,0067 0,1771 'some_realusername'
178 16,786 0,0178 0,0137 0,178
'verylongusernamestringwithnumbersandlet
tersandwithoutunderscoresymbolbutveryveryverylong1234verylong'
RE: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
51 3,251 0,0051 0,0039 0,038 'aaaaa#'
82 3,255 0,0082 0,007 0,038 'some_realusername'
161 3,263 0,0161 0,0142 0,047
'verylongusernamestringwithnumbersandlet
tersandwithoutunderscoresymbolbutveryveryverylong1234verylong'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------
As you can see sometimes my expression is quicker

The code of the benchmark tool is here
http://www.codinghorror.com/files/code/regexbenchmark.zip
I compiled it in .NET2 and ran without debugger. If I run the
benchmark 4-5 times very often I see that my expression has the best
reported score, even for a long strings. So, I would say that
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

is better, because it's shorter

Yours is probably faster I believe that, less alternatives for correct
strings. but have you tried a very long incorrect input? Something
like (the longer the better)

aaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAA666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666&

If the textbox in question is limited to say 16 characters you'd
probably never trigger the problem, but a hacker could just bypass the
length of the textbox and supply a very very long string and if he'd
send such strings in quick succession he'd essentially cause a denial
of service.

There are some optimizations that are possible for thsi regex if
you'd want to try them. The enige will try the first option first, if
that fails it will try the second. Keeping that in mind, the order of
expressions is of importance. Say that you usually have no '_' in
usernames, but if they're there you mostly have them somewhere in
between. Then you'd have to change the order to improve performance.
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

Also my expression allows an underscore both at the start, the end and
in
between. Yours only covers the last option. I would probably rewrite
my expression
to this to make it do the same as your expression. It is almost as
short,
but does not allow excessive backtracking.
^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$
And then there is the option to handle upper and lower case characters
in the character groups, or in a regexoption. I'm actually not sure
which is faster, but it's worth a try... Wrapping the whole expression
with (?i: ... ) should do the trick. all [a-zA-Z] can then be replaced
with just [a-z] ^(?i:....)$

And finally to suppress grouping & capturing we can improve
performance by replacing the normal ( ... ) with (?: ... ).

To optimize your expression further you could completely remove the (
... ) they have no use.

So a fair showdown of expressions would be:
Yours: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
Mine: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$
Or with case insensitivity:
Yours: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+_?[a-z0-9]+)$
Mine: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+(?:_[a-z0-9]+)?)$
I ran it using the same tool you used on my Opteron 185 (2x2.6Ghz)
under Windows Vista x64. I made a small change to the code of the
benchmark though, the original benchmark takes the Compile hit in the
results. I did one call using the specific expression outside of the
loop so that the results can be compared more easily.

Input's used:
0
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
1 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa", _

2 "aaaa", _

3
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%",

_

4 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%", _

5 "aaaa%", _

6
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",

_

7 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa", _

8 "aa_aa", _

9
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%",

_

10 "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa%", _

11 "aa_aa%" _

Results:
Regular expression benchmark
----------------------------
Regular expressions : 4
Test strings : 12
Iterations : 10000
Total regex calls : (10000 * 12 * 4) = 480000
Pass 1, measure every regex as it runs (slower due to timing code)...
------------------------------------------
Regular expression library: System.Text.RegularExpressions
Total time taken: 58905
------------------------------------------
Pass 2, measure total time only..
------------------------------------------
Regular expression library: System.Text.RegularExpressions
RE: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+_?[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
110 0,365 0,011 0,0101 0,0073 '0'
145 0,387 0,0145 0,0134 0,0088 '1'
167 0,391 0,0167 0,0154 0,0095 '2'
17804 10,683 1,7804 1,6751 0,3004 '3'
18291 10,756 1,8291 1,7206 0,3042 '4'
18319 10,78 1,8319 1,7231 0,3046 '5'
18429 10,791 1,8429 1,7335 0,3055 '6'
18464 10,794 1,8464 1,7365 0,3058 '7'
18487 10,797 1,8487 1,7388 0,3059 '8'
18741 10,842 1,8741 1,7625 0,3079 '9'
18891 10,856 1,8891 1,7762 0,3129 '10'
18918 10,88 1,8918 1,7784 0,3135 '11'
RE: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
107 0,229 0,0107 0,0101 0,0049 '0'
141 0,484 0,0141 0,0134 0,0076 '1'
163 0,562 0,0163 0,0154 0,0085 '2'
512 1,015 0,0512 0,0489 0,0166 '3'
585 1,022 0,0585 0,0559 0,018 '4'
611 1,025 0,0611 0,0584 0,0185 '5'
715 1,035 0,0715 0,0682 0,0204 '6'
749 1,038 0,0749 0,0715 0,0207 '7'
773 1,604 0,0773 0,0735 0,0258 '8'
1010 1,634 0,101 0,0961 0,0299 '9'
1072 1,64 0,1072 0,102 0,0304 '10'
1097 1,643 0,1097 0,1045 0,0305 '11'
RE: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+_?[a-z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
241 2,098 0,0241 0,0204 0,0231 '0'
299 2,108 0,0299 0,0254 0,0241 '1'
325 2,11 0,0325 0,0279 0,0242 '2'
34692 17,108 3,4692 3,0303 0,4154 '3'
35653 17,191 3,5653 3,113 0,4274 '4'
35694 17,195 3,5694 3,1163 0,4284 '5'
35932 17,215 3,5932 3,137 0,4298 '6'
35990 17,22 3,599 3,1417 0,4304 '7'
36018 17,223 3,6018 3,1443 0,4305 '8'
36505 17,29 3,6505 3,1867 0,4337 '9'
36782 17,493 3,6782 3,2107 0,438 '10'
36815 17,496 3,6815 3,2138 0,4387 '11'
RE: ^(?i:[a-z0-9]+(?:_[a-z0-9]+)?)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
236 1,798 0,0236 0,0201 0,0195 '0'
291 1,811 0,0291 0,0251 0,0201 '1'
320 4,578 0,032 0,0274 0,0497 '2'
946 4,635 0,0946 0,0827 0,0546 '3'
1067 4,645 0,1067 0,093 0,0611 '4'
1097 4,648 0,1097 0,0958 0,0613 '5'
1333 4,669 0,1333 0,1162 0,0631 '6'
1388 4,674 0,1388 0,1212 0,0633 '7'
1415 4,677 0,1415 0,1235 0,0634 '8'
1791 4,711 0,1791 0,1576 0,0654 '9'
1890 4,989 0,189 0,1659 0,0814 '10'
1920 4,999 0,192 0,1687 0,0816 '11'
Total time taken: 58088
------------------------------------------
Press ENTER to continue...
I wouldn't have thought that case insensitivity would make such a big
difference. Learned something again today .

My expression, without the case insensitivity is clearly the fastest:
RE: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?$

So I'd say this one is better, as it's only 3 characters longer than
yours, but much faster and without a possible DoS problem.

But as the original post didn't say that the underscore could only be
between alphanumeric characters. It said that there was one '_'
allowed in teh string (read anywhere in the string) my first
expression best covers the problem.
^(?:[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$

Jesse

I tried my original expression based on the optimizations I did above and
these are the results (and tried another variant which seems to be even better):

Regular expression benchmark
----------------------------
Regular expressions : 2
Test strings : 12
Iterations : 10000
Total regex calls : (10000 * 12 * 2) = 240000

Pass 1, measure every regex as it runs (slower due to timing code)...
------------------------------------------
Regular expression library: System.Text.RegularExpressions

Total time taken: 2601
------------------------------------------
Pass 2, measure total time only..
------------------------------------------
Regular expression library: System.Text.RegularExpressions

RE: ^(?:[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)?|[a-zA-Z0-9]+_|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
107 0,407 0,0107 0,0101 0,0072 '0'
142 0,412 0,0142 0,0134 0,0083 '1'
163 0,523 0,0163 0,0154 0,0093 '2'
676 4,552 0,0676 0,0634 0,0553 '3'
777 4,567 0,0777 0,0726 0,0634 '4'
805 4,569 0,0805 0,0754 0,0635 '5'
925 15,511 0,0925 0,0852 0,167 '6'
960 15,527 0,096 0,0886 0,1673 '7'
982 15,529 0,0982 0,0905 0,1673 '8'
1245 15,554 0,1245 0,1154 0,1682 '9'
1320 15,562 0,132 0,1224 0,1684 '10'
1347 15,565 0,1347 0,1249 0,1684 '11'
RE: ^(?:[a-zA-Z0-9]+(?:_[a-zA-Z0-9]*)?|_[a-zA-Z0-9]+)$
MS MAX AVG MIN DEV INPUT
112 3,757 0,0112 0,0101 0,0402 '0'
148 3,765 0,0148 0,0134 0,0412 '1'
169 3,767 0,0169 0,0154 0,0412 '2'
525 3,801 0,0525 0,0492 0,0476 '3'
599 3,809 0,0599 0,0562 0,0478 '4'
626 3,811 0,0626 0,0584 0,0494 '5'
737 4,931 0,0737 0,0687 0,0707 '6'
773 4,938 0,0773 0,0718 0,0714 '7'
796 4,941 0,0796 0,074 0,0715 '8'
1041 4,965 0,1041 0,0972 0,0735 '9'
1105 4,971 0,1105 0,1031 0,0741 '10'
1131 4,974 0,1131 0,1056 0,0744 '11'
Total time taken: 2037
------------------------------------------
Press ENTER to continue...

It cannot rival the simpler expression for speed, but it's coming close.

Appart from all this, my guess is that a simple string function would be
even faster (and not even that hard to read) (C#). But if you want to have
this clientside as well, you'll need to write a similar function in Javascript
and maintain that too.

public bool IsCorrectName(string input)
{
bool underscoreFound = false;
foreach (char c in string input)
{
if (c >= 'A' && c<='Z'){ continue };
if (c >= 'a' && c<='z'){ continue };
if (c >= '0' && c<='9'){ continue };
if (c == '_' && !underscoreFound)
{
underscoreFound = true;
continue;
}
return false;
}
return true;
}

I haven't timed it. But I think there will be no contest here.

Jesse