Benchmark: RegEx.test vs Array.includes

Script Preparation code:

var appState = "active";
var regex = /inactive|background/;
var arr = ['inactive', 'background'];

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(appState);
Array.includes
arr.includes(appState);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance difference between two approaches: using regular expressions (regex) with `test()` function and using array methods (`includes()`).

**Options being compared:**

1. **Regex with `test()`**: This approach uses a regex pattern to match against the input string `appState`. The `test()` method returns a boolean value indicating whether the pattern matches.
2. **Array with `includes()`: This approach checks if the input string `appState` is included in the array `arr`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Regex with `test()`**:
	* Pros: Can be more flexible, as regex patterns can handle complex matching requirements.
	* Cons: May be slower than simple array methods due to the overhead of compiling and executing the regex pattern.
2. **Array with `includes()`**:
	* Pros: Fast and lightweight, as it uses a native JavaScript method that is optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Limited to exact string matching; may not handle complex cases like regex.

In general, regex can be more powerful but also slower due to the overhead of compiling and executing the pattern. Array methods are often faster and more lightweight, but may not offer the same level of flexibility as regex.

**Library used in the test case:**

None, this benchmark does not use any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax used:**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark, as it only relies on standard JavaScript functionality.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	6069256.5 Ops/sec
Array.includes	6605411.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs Array.includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs Array.includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

Array.includes

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):