Benchmark: indexOf vs for loop vs regex

Script Preparation code:

s = 'dskmfsl <fmomfwioemwpimfwaomwe lkmd lkasmd lwek lksdfm lzkm <lek "'

Tests:

indexOf
const hasQuote = s.indexOf('"')
for
let hasQuote = false for(let i = 0; i < s.length; i++) { if(s[i] === '"') { hasQuote = true; break } }
regex
!!s.match(/"/)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
for
regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf	15848365.0 Ops/sec
for	136005.1 Ops/sec
regex	8369246.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "indexOf vs for loop vs regex", tests three different approaches to find a specific character in a given string:

1. `indexOf` method (JavaScript built-in)
2. For loop ( manual iteration)
3. Regular expression (`regex`) (using the `match()` function)

Each test case has its own benchmark definition, which includes a script preparation code that generates a random string.

**Options Compared**

The three options are compared in terms of their execution speed and frequency of use. The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest and most efficient for this specific task.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. `indexOf` method:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and optimized by JavaScript engine.
		+ Fewer lines of code, making it easier to read and maintain.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for all types of strings (e.g., null or undefined).
2. For loop:
	* Pros:
		+ Can handle any type of string without restrictions.
		+ Allows for manual control over iteration and conditions.
	* Cons:
		+ More lines of code, making it less readable and maintainable.
		+ Less optimized than the `indexOf` method.
3. Regular expression (`regex`):
	* Pros:
		+ Can handle complex pattern matching and string manipulation.
		+ Allows for regular expressions to be reused across multiple tests.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than the `indexOf` method due to the overhead of compiling regex patterns.
		+ Requires a better understanding of regex syntax.

**Library: None**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax: None**

This benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript syntax and built-in methods.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string search algorithms include:

1. `includes()` method (JavaScript built-in): Similar to `indexOf`, but returns a boolean value instead of an index.
2. `str.indexOf()` method: A Java-based implementation, which can be slower than the JavaScript engine's optimized version.
3. Custom implementation using bitwise operations and indexing.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**

The script preparation code generates a random string containing both double quotes (`"`) and less-than signs (`<`). The purpose is to create a test case that requires searching for the double quote character.

**Individual Test Cases:**

Each test case has its own benchmark definition, which includes:

1. A JavaScript expression using the `indexOf`, `for`, or `regex` method.
2. A description of the test case (empty in this case).

The provided code snippets demonstrate how to create a simple test case using each approach.

By analyzing these details, you should be able to understand the benchmark and its underlying assumptions about string search algorithms.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs for loop vs regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs for vs regex

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

for

regex

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):