Benchmark: teeegaeg - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

var a = ("test" === "test");
var a = ("test" === "test");
var b = "test".match(/test/);
var b = "test".match(/test/);
var c = ["test"].includes("test");
var c = ["test"].includes("test");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
var a = ("test" === "test");
var b = "test".match(/test/);
var c = ["test"].includes("test");

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
var a = ("test" === "test");	2254113024.0 Ops/sec
var b = "test".match(/test/);	30097998.0 Ops/sec
var c = ["test"].includes("test");	2176881920.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and benchmark setup to explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided `Benchmark Definition` is an empty object, which means that no specific operations are defined in this benchmark. Instead, three individual test cases are provided, each with a brief description or purpose.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. `var a = (\"test\" === \"test\");`
This test case compares two strings using the `===` operator. The goal is to measure the performance of this operation.
2. `var b = \"test\".match(/test/);`
This test case uses the `match()` method on a string, which attempts to find a specific regular expression within it.
3. `var c = [\"test\"].includes(\"test\");`
This test case checks if an element exists in an array using the `includes()` method.

**Comparison of Options**

The three test cases are compared to measure the performance differences between these operations:

* **String comparison (`===`) vs. Regular expression matching (`match()`) vs. Array search (`includes()`)
	+ Pros and Cons:
		- String comparison (`===`): Simple, efficient, but limited to exact string matches.
		- Regular expression matching (`match()`): More flexible, can match patterns with `*`, `.`, `^`, `$`, etc., but often slower due to the complexity of regular expressions. Requires additional setup and optimization for best performance.
		- Array search (`includes()`: Fast, efficient, and modern, but may not be as performant as simple array indexing in some cases.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. However, if they were to use a library, it would likely be a JavaScript testing framework like Jest or Mocha, which provides features for setting up tests, running them, and comparing results.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They are standard JavaScript operations that can be easily understood by most software engineers.

**Other Alternatives**

If the goal of these benchmarks were to compare performance differences, other alternatives might include:

* Using different implementation-specific optimizations (e.g., `String.prototype.indexOf()` vs. simple array indexing)
* Using different browsers or versions to see how compatibility affects performance
* Comparing performance on different hardware configurations (e.g., desktop vs. mobile devices)

Keep in mind that the specific options and alternatives will depend on the goals of the benchmark and the context in which it's being used.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested and compared in these benchmarks!

Related benchmarks:

teeegaeg (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: var a = ("test" === "test"); vs var b = "test".match(/test/); vs var c = ["test"].includes("test");

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

var a = ("test" === "test");

var b = "test".match(/test/);

var c = ["test"].includes("test");

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):