Benchmark: String.match 2 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Array.includes
'foobar'.includes('foo'); 'qwertyuiopfoobar'.includes('foo'); 'bazbar'.includes('foo');
String.match
const regexp = /foo/; 'foobar'.match(regexp); 'qwertyuiopfoobar'.match(regexp); 'bazbar'.match(regexp);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
String.match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.135 YaBrowser/21.6.2.867 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 21 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	11147573.0 Ops/sec
String.match	5294765.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for matching strings against multiple possibilities: using the `includes()` method on arrays and strings, and using regular expressions with the `match()` method.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Array.includes**: This approach uses the `includes()` method on arrays to check if a string is present in the array.
2. **String.match**: This approach uses regular expressions with the `match()` method to search for a pattern (in this case, "foo") in a string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array.includes**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient, especially for small arrays.
		+ Simple to use and understand.
	* Cons:
		+ Not designed for matching against strings; can be slow for large strings.
		+ Limited control over the search process.
2. **String.match**:
	* Pros:
		+ Flexible and powerful for complex searches.
		+ Can handle large strings efficiently.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex to use and understand, especially for beginners.
		+ May be slower than `includes()` due to regular expression overhead.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The test does not explicitly mention any libraries or special JavaScript features. However, it assumes a basic understanding of the `includes()` method and regular expressions in JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* If you need to match strings against multiple possibilities quickly and efficiently, using `Array.includes` might be a better choice.
* If you need more control over the search process or want to handle complex patterns, using `String.match` with regular expressions might be a better choice.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for matching strings against multiple possibilities include:

1. **Using a library**: Libraries like Lodash or String-Parse provide optimized functions for string matching and manipulation.
2. **Using a different data structure**: Using a data structure like a Trie or a suffix tree can provide efficient matching capabilities.
3. **Using a search engine**: Depending on the specific requirements, using a dedicated search engine like Google's Clientless Search might be more suitable.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

String.match 2 (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs String.match

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

String.match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):