Benchmark: String.includes() vs. String.matchAll (no match)

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'vars.test asflkglsfsdfm;l; s;lfkg;sldf g;sd f; sd;fl ;lsd fg;lsd f;gdsfg s df;gl sdl;fgkl;sdkf gl;s df;gl s;dlfg;sdfg }}';
var startDelim = '{{';
var endDelim = '}}';
var matcher = new RegExp(`${startDelim}((?!${endDelim}).+?)${endDelim}`, 'g');

Tests:

String.includes()
string.includes(startDelim) && string.includes(endDelim);
String.matchAll()
string.matchAll(matcher);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.includes()
String.matchAll()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.includes()	4285666.5 Ops/sec
String.matchAll()	2984228.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test compares the performance of two string-related methods: `String.includes()` and `String.matchAll()`. Specifically, it tests the execution time of each method when searching for a substring within a large, complex string that contains no matches.

**Tested Options**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **`String.includes()`**: This method searches for an exact match of a given substring within a string. It returns `true` if the substring is found and `false` otherwise.
2. **`String.matchAll()`**: This method returns all non-overlapping matches of a regular expression pattern within a string as an array of strings.

**Pros and Cons**

**`String.includes()`**:

Pros:

* Simple, straightforward implementation
* Fast execution time due to its iterative approach

Cons:

* May not be suitable for searching multiple substrings or complex patterns
* Can be slow for large input strings if the substring is not found

**`String.matchAll()`**:

Pros:

* Supports regular expressions with complex patterns and anchors
* Returns all matches, allowing for iteration over results

Cons:

* Slower execution time compared to `String.includes()`
* May require more memory allocation for storing match results

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, the `RegExp` constructor is used to create a regular expression pattern. The `g` flag at the end of the pattern enables global matching, which allows the method to search for all matches in the string.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing the performance of these two methods might include:

* **Using a library**: A dedicated string manipulation library like Lodash or a regular expression engine like RegExpOptimized could provide optimized implementations for `String.includes()` and `String.matchAll()`.
* **Using a different algorithm**: Alternative algorithms, such as using a Boyer-Moore or Knuth-Morris-Pratt search for exact matches or a more efficient string matching algorithm like Aho-Corasick.
* **Testing with smaller input strings**: Using smaller input strings to reduce the impact of caching, page loading, and other external factors on benchmark results.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and effective way to compare the performance of `String.includes()` and `String.matchAll()` in a controlled environment.

Related benchmarks:

String.includes() vs. String.matchAll (no match) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String.includes() vs String.matchAll()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.includes()

String.matchAll()

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):