Benchmark: Case Insensitive RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs String.startsWith

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only";
var regex = /^content-security-policy/i;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.toLowerCase().includes("content-security-policy");
String.startsWith
string.toLowerCase().startsWith("content-security-policy");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.startsWith

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches for case-insensitive string matching in JavaScript:

1. `RegEx.test()`
2. `String.includes()` with `.toLowerCase()`
3. `String.startsWith()` with no explicit case conversion

These three methods are compared on the same input string: `"Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only"`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is testing the performance of each method under different conditions:

* `RegEx.test()`: a traditional regular expression approach
* `String.includes()`: a method that uses the `includes()` function to check if a substring exists in a string, with `.toLowerCase()` applied to both strings for case-insensitive comparison
* `String.startsWith()`: a method that checks if a string starts with another string, with no explicit case conversion

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **RegEx.test()**:
	* Pros: highly flexible, can match complex patterns, and is widely supported.
	* Cons: slower than native methods like `String.includes()` or `String.startsWith()`, requires more CPU resources.
2. **String.includes() with `.toLowerCase()`**:
	* Pros: fast, easy to use, and efficient for simple cases.
	* Cons: applies `.toLowerCase()` to both strings, which can be unnecessary and introduce additional overhead if the input string is already in a specific case.
3. **String.startsWith() with no explicit case conversion**:
	* Pros: optimized for start-of-string checks and avoids unnecessary case conversions like `.toLowerCase()`.
	* Cons: may not be as flexible as `RegEx.test()` or as efficient as `String.includes()` without `.toLowerCase()`.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the methods used in this benchmark rely on a specific library. However, `String.includes()` is a built-in JavaScript method that has been optimized for performance.

There are no special JS features being tested in this benchmark, such as async/await or modern language features like `async/parallel` execution.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to testing string matching performance could include:

* Using a different input string or dataset
* Comparing the performance of other methods like `String.indexOf()`, `String.match()`, or `RegExp.test()`
* Incorporating additional factors, such as cache or indexing overhead, into the benchmark

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and effective way to compare the performance of three common string matching approaches in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	4855213.5 Ops/sec
String.includes	11799540.0 Ops/sec
String.startsWith	4847911.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Case Insensitive RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs String.startsWith (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.startsWith

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.startsWith

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):