Benchmark: String.includes vs String.match

Tests:

String.includes
const testStrFirst = 'http://www.google.com'; testStrFirst.includes("localhost") && testStrFirst.includes("https")
Single Match
const testStrFirst = 'http://www.google.com'; testStrFirst.match(/(https|localhost)/);
Multiple Match
const testStrFirst = 'http://www.google.com'; testStrFirst.match(/https/) && testStrFirst.match(/localhost/);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.includes
Single Match
Multiple Match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/103.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 103 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.includes	34278144.0 Ops/sec
Single Match	17993906.0 Ops/sec
Multiple Match	16417613.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark compares three approaches for matching a string against multiple possibilities: `String.includes`, `String.match` with a single regular expression, and `String.match` with multiple regular expressions.

**Approach 1: String.includes**

This approach checks if the string contains the specified substring. The `includes` method is called twice on the same string, which may lead to unnecessary work if there's no match in between. On the other hand, it can be faster if the search space is large and the search is not sequential.

**Pros:**

* Simple and concise code
* Can be faster for large search spaces

**Cons:**

* May be slower if the search is sequential or if there's a partial match between searches
* May lead to unnecessary work if there's no match in between

**Approach 2: Single Match with String.match**

This approach uses a single regular expression to match against multiple substrings. The `match` method returns an array of matches, and the test code checks for any non-empty matches.

**Pros:**

* Can be faster than sequential calls to `includes`
* Reduces unnecessary work by using a single regex

**Cons:**

* May be slower if the regular expression is complex or if there are many substrings to match
* Requires careful consideration of edge cases and optimal regular expressions

**Approach 3: Multiple Matches with String.match**

This approach uses multiple regular expressions to match against separate substrings. The test code checks for each non-empty match individually.

**Pros:**

* Can be faster if there are many separate matches or if the regular expressions are simple
* Allows for more flexibility in matching logic

**Cons:**

* May lead to unnecessary work and slower performance if there are few or no matches
* Requires careful consideration of edge cases and optimal regular expressions

**Library Used: None**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, JavaScript's built-in `String` methods (`includes`, `match`) are used.

**Special JS Features/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for matching strings against multiple possibilities include:

1. Using a loop to iterate over the search substrings, which can be more straightforward but may lead to performance issues if there are many searches.
2. Using a trie data structure to store and match against prefix ranges, which can be efficient for large datasets.
3. Using a dedicated library or function specifically designed for fuzzy matching, such as fuzzystring.js.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

String.includes vs String.match (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: String.includes vs Single Match vs Multiple Match

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.includes

Single Match

Multiple Match

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):