Benchmark: str.match vs str.Split1

Script Preparation code:

string = "This is a benchmark to test if matching a regex is faster that splitting a string";
regex = /\S+/gi;

Tests:

String.split1
string.split(" ").filter(Boolean)
Regex.match1
string.match(/[^,]+/g)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.split1
Regex.match1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.split1	1744723.6 Ops/sec
Regex.match1	2795032.0 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 Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using `String.match()` with a regular expression (regex) and `String.split()` with a string separator. The goal is to determine which method is faster for splitting a string at spaces.

**Options Compared**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **`string.split(" ")`**: This method splits the input string into an array of substrings using a space character as the delimiter.
2. **`string.match(/\S+/gi)`**: This method searches for one or more non-space characters (`\S+`) in the string, matching from the beginning (`^`) to the end (`$`) of the string, and ignoring case (`i`). The `g` flag at the end makes it match all occurrences, not just the first one.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`string.split(" ")`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, intuitive, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May be slower than regex-based approaches for large strings or complex patterns.
* **`string.match(/\S+/gi)`**:
	+ Pros: Can handle regular expressions with variables, quantifiers, and flags, making it flexible and powerful.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of compiling and executing the regex pattern.

**Library**

The `String.prototype.match()` method uses JavaScript's built-in String API to execute the regex pattern. The library is the JavaScript Core Library, which provides the fundamental functionality for working with strings in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark that would require a deep understanding of JavaScript beyond basic concepts.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `String.match()` and `String.split()`, consider the following:

* If you need to split a string at multiple delimiters (e.g., commas, spaces), use `string.split()`.
* If you need to extract data from a string using a regex pattern, use `string.match()`.
* If you're working with large datasets or performance-critical code, consider using optimized libraries like `regex- escape()`.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for splitting strings in JavaScript include:

1. **`String.prototype.replace()`**: Can be used to split a string by replacing a substring with an empty string.
2. **`Array.prototype.map()`**: Can be used to process each element of an array (split string) and create a new array with the desired output.
3. **`lodash.string.split()`**: A popular utility library that provides a robust `split()` method for working with strings.

These alternatives may offer better performance, flexibility, or convenience in specific situations, but they require additional setup and may have trade-offs in terms of complexity or overhead.

Related benchmarks:

str.match vs str.Split1 (version: 0)

Test String.match with regex against String.split with string. We are splitting a string at the spaces.

Comparing performance of: String.split1 vs Regex.match1

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.split1

Regex.match1

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):