Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match(Regex)

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /Hello/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("Hello");
String.match
string.match(regex);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 13; SM-G781U) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/114.0.1823.41

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 114 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	4635068.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	11472753.0 Ops/sec
String.match	4001698.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to check if a string contains or matches a specific pattern:

1. **`regex.test(string)`**: This method uses the `test()` function of a RegExp object, which tests whether the entire string matches the regular expression.
2. **`string.includes("Hello")`**: This method checks if the string contains the specified substring ("Hello").
3. **`string.match(regex)`**: This method returns an array containing the full match (if found) and any capturing groups (if defined).

**Comparison**

The three approaches are compared in terms of performance, specifically the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`regex.test(string)`**:
	+ Pros: Can be more accurate than `includes()` or `match()`, especially for complex patterns.
	+ Cons: May have slower performance due to the overhead of creating and executing a RegExp object.
* **`string.includes("Hello")`**:
	+ Pros: Fast and simple, but may not be as efficient as other methods for large strings.
	+ Cons: Can lead to false positives if "Hello" is part of another substring.
* **`string.match(regex)`**:
	+ Pros: Can return more information than just a boolean value (e.g., capturing groups).
	+ Cons: May have slower performance due to the overhead of creating and executing a RegExp object.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but `String.includes()` is a built-in JavaScript method. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may optimize this method using a specialized algorithm or data structure (e.g., `includes()` uses a "trie" data structure on Chrome).

**Other Considerations**

The test cases use a simple string ("Hello world!") and a regular expression ("/Hello/") to make the comparison more straightforward. In real-world scenarios, you might need to consider other factors, such as:

* The length of the input strings
* The complexity of the patterns
* The presence of special characters or non-ASCII characters
* The specific requirements of your use case (e.g., accuracy vs. performance)

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string matching and pattern searching in JavaScript include:

* `String.prototype.indexOf()` or `String.prototype.lastIndexOf()`: These methods return the index of the first or last occurrence of a substring, respectively.
* `Regexp.exec()`: This method returns an array containing the full match (if found) and any capturing groups (if defined).
* `RegExp.test()`: Similar to `regex.test(string)`, but can be used as a standalone function.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, accuracy, and features.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

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):