Benchmark: Vowel Start - RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /^[aeiou]/i;
var vowels = 'aeiou';

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
vowels.includes(string[0]);
String.match
vowels.match(string[0]);

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 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	7789363.5 Ops/sec
String.includes	9053339.0 Ops/sec
String.match	3754723.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to check if a string contains a specific vowel: using regular expressions (`regex.test`), `String.includes`, and `String.match`.

**Regular Expressions (RegEx)**

* The regular expression used is `/^[aeiou]/i`, which matches any character that is a lowercase vowel (`a`, `e`, `i`, `o`, or `u`) in an uppercase or lowercase manner, due to the `i` flag.
* The `regex.test()` function returns `true` if the string contains at least one match of the pattern and `false` otherwise.

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* Regular expressions can be very powerful and flexible for matching patterns in strings.
* They are often used as a way to validate or parse user input.

Cons:

* Regular expressions can be complex and hard to read, especially for non-experts.
* Performance can be slower compared to other methods due to the overhead of compiling the pattern.

**String.includes**

* The `includes()` method returns `true` if the string contains the specified vowel as its first character.
* It is a more straightforward and efficient way to check for vowel presence, especially when only considering the first character.

Pros:

* Faster performance compared to regular expressions.
* Easy to understand and implement.

Cons:

* Only checks the first character of the string.
* May not be suitable for cases where you need to check for multiple vowels or a pattern in the entire string.

**String.match**

* The `match()` function returns an array containing all matches of the specified vowel in the string, or `null` if no match is found.
* It is similar to `includes()`, but can be used to check for multiple vowels or patterns.

Pros:

* Similar performance to `includes()`.
* Can be used to check for multiple vowels or patterns.

Cons:

* Returns an array of matches, which may not always be useful.
* May consume more memory than necessary.

**Library and Syntax**

No libraries are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines often provide built-in functions like `String.includes()` and regular expression methods (`regex.test()`).

If the benchmark were to use a library or special JS feature, I would need more information about what those specifics are.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to checking for vowel presence in strings include:

* Using an array or string of vowels to check against, rather than relying on built-in methods.
* Creating a custom function using bitwise operations or other techniques to quickly identify vowels.
* Utilizing a library like `regex-approximation` which provides an approximation of the time complexity of regular expressions.

However, without more information about the specific requirements and constraints of the benchmark, it's difficult to recommend alternative approaches.

**Benchmark Results Interpretation**

The provided benchmark results show that:

* `String.includes()` performed best with an execution rate of 9053339.0 executions per second.
* `RegEx.test()` performed worst with an execution rate of 3754723.75 executions per second.
* `String.match()` performed middle-of-the-pack with an execution rate of 7789363.5 executions per second.

These results suggest that using `String.includes()` is the most efficient approach for checking vowel presence in strings, followed closely by `String.match()`.

Related benchmarks:

Vowel Start - RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match (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 one month ago):