Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs. String.indexOf

Script Preparation code:

var string = "http://localhost:3000/_next/static/chunks/main.js?ts=1672228669589";
var regex = /_next/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("_next");
String.match
string.match("_next");
string.indexOf
string.indexOf('_next')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.match
string.indexOf

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of four different methods for searching a string: `RegEx.test()`, `String.includes()`, `String.match()`, and `String.indexOf()`.

**Options Compared**

These four options are compared, each with its own strengths and weaknesses:

1. **`RegEx.test()`**: This method uses regular expressions to search for the specified pattern in the string. Regular expressions provide a high degree of flexibility but can be computationally expensive.
2. **`String.includes()`**: This method checks if the specified substring is present in the original string. It's a simple and efficient way to check for presence, but it may not be as effective when searching for specific patterns or values.
3. **`String.match()`**: Similar to `RegEx.test()`, this method uses regular expressions to search for matches in the string. However, it returns an array of matches if found, whereas `RegEx.test()` only returns a boolean value (true/false).
4. **`String.indexOf()`**: This method finds the index of the first occurrence of the specified substring in the original string. It's fast and efficient but may not be suitable for finding all occurrences or searching for patterns.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`RegEx.test()`**:
	* Pros: Highly flexible, can search for complex patterns.
	* Cons: Computationally expensive, may have performance issues with large inputs.
2. **`String.includes()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and fast.
	* Cons: Limited functionality; may not be suitable for searching specific values or patterns.
3. **`String.match()`**:
	* Pros: Can return multiple matches if needed, flexible syntax.
	* Cons: Returns an array of matches, which can be computationally expensive in certain cases.
4. **`String.indexOf()`**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for finding the first occurrence of a value.
	* Cons: May not find all occurrences, requires careful handling of edge cases.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses no external libraries. However, it does utilize some special JavaScript features:

1. **Regular expressions**: The `RegEx.test()` method is implemented using regular expressions to provide flexible pattern matching.
2. **String methods**: The other methods (`includes()`, `match()`, and `indexOf()`) are built-in string methods in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.includes()` or `String.prototype.includes()` instead of `String.includes()`**: These methods provide similar functionality but with slightly different syntax.
2. **Implementing a custom searching algorithm**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might be able to implement an optimized searching algorithm that outperforms the built-in string methods.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a valuable comparison of four common string search methods in JavaScript. Understanding the pros and cons of each approach can help you choose the best method for your specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/108.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 108 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	22500056.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	34265260.0 Ops/sec
String.match	8775129.0 Ops/sec
string.indexOf	1243271040.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs. String.indexOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.match vs string.indexOf

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

string.indexOf

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):