Benchmark: string.includes vs string.indexOf vs regex.test(string)

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.'

Tests:

indexOf
string.indexOf('ullamco')
includes
string.includes('ullamco')
regex
/ullamco/.test(string)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
includes
regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf	32534130.0 Ops/sec
includes	32319680.0 Ops/sec
regex	9236062.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of three string search methods:

1. `string.indexOf()`
2. `string.includes()`
3. Regular Expressions (`/regex.test(string)/`)

These methods are compared to determine which one is the fastest.

**Options comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each option and their pros and cons:

1. **`string.indexOf()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for small strings.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large strings, as it has to search through the entire string from the start.
2. **`string.includes()`**:
	* Pros: Faster than `indexOf()` for large strings, as it can stop searching once it finds a match.
	* Cons: May be slower for very small strings due to its algorithmic overhead.
3. **Regular Expressions (`/regex.test(string)/`)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than the above two methods, especially for regular expressions with a large number of alternatives.
	* Cons: Requires an additional library (in this case, none is specified), can be slower for very small strings due to its complexity.

**Library usage**

None of the tests explicitly use a library for regular expressions. However, if a library were used, it would likely provide additional features and optimizations for the `regex.test()` method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test other string search methods, here are some alternatives:

* **`string.search()`**: Similar to `indexOf()`, but returns -1 if no match is found instead of returning null.
* **`String.prototype.indexOf()`**: A shorthand method for calling `indexOf()` on a string instance (e.g., `string.indexOf('ullamco')`).
* **NativeWebAssembly**: Not applicable in this benchmark, as it requires specific hardware and software configurations.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code creates a large string variable `string`, which is used for all test cases. The HTML preparation code is empty, suggesting that no HTML-related operations are being performed during the benchmarking process.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

string.includes vs string.indexOf vs regex.test(string) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs includes vs regex

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

includes

regex

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):