Benchmark: RegExp.exec vs String.match vs RegExp.test vs RegExp.match

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /[A-Z][a-z]+ [a-z]+/;

Tests:

regex.exec
regex.exec(string);
string.match
string.match(regex);
regex.test
regex.test(string);
regex.match
regex[Symbol.match](string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regex.exec
string.match
regex.test
regex.match

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different approaches to match a regular expression against a string:

1. `RegExp.exec()`
2. `String.match()`
3. `RegExp.test()`
4. `RegExp[Symbol.match]()`

These methods are used to search for a pattern in a string and return a match array or boolean value.

**Method Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each method, their pros and cons:

1. **`RegExp.exec()`**:
	* Pros: Can be used with both regular expressions and strings.
	* Cons: Returns an array containing the matched text and the entire match (optional).
	* Purpose: Used to search for matches in a string and return the matched text and position information.
2. **`String.match()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to use, and can be used with strings only.
	* Cons: Returns null if no match is found.
	* Purpose: Used to search for matches in a string and return an array of matches or null.
3. **`RegExp.test()`**:
	* Pros: Similar to `exec()`, but returns a boolean value instead of an array.
	* Cons: Not suitable for searching multiple matches in a string.
	* Purpose: Used to test if a pattern exists in a string without capturing groups.
4. **`RegExp[Symbol.match]()```**:
	* Pros: Provides more control over the match process, allowing you to specify options like case sensitivity and global matching.
	* Cons: Introduced in newer browsers only (Edge 79+, Chrome 76+), so compatibility might be an issue.

The `Symbol.match` method is a relatively new feature that was introduced in JavaScript 2015. It allows you to use the `match()` function as a property of the regular expression object, providing more flexibility and control over the match process.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some browsers (like Edge) have their own implementation of the `Symbol.match` method. However, for most modern browsers, you can rely on the standard JavaScript functions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these methods, consider the following factors:

* Complexity of the regular expression: More complex regex patterns might require `RegExp.exec()` or `RegExp[Symbol.match]()`, while simpler patterns might suffice with `String.match()`.
* Performance requirements: If speed is crucial, using a more efficient method like `RegExp.exec()` or `RegExp[Symbol.match]()` can provide better performance.
* Compatibility: Be mindful of browser compatibility when choosing between these methods.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarking frameworks or libraries, some popular options include:

* `benchmark.js`: A widely-used benchmarking library specifically designed for JavaScript benchmarks.
* `jsperf.com`: A popular online platform for running JavaScript benchmarks and comparing performance across different browsers and versions.
* `browserbench.net`: A web-based benchmarking tool that allows you to compare browser performance across various tests and scenarios.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex.exec	5674889.5 Ops/sec
string.match	5505200.5 Ops/sec
regex.test	7095674.5 Ops/sec
regex.match	3464063.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegExp.exec vs String.match vs RegExp.test vs RegExp.match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex.exec vs string.match vs regex.test vs regex.match

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex.exec

string.match

regex.test

regex.match

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):