Benchmark: String includes space (regex vs String.includes) 2

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'https://www.google.com?query=' + new Array(2083).fill('a');
var regex = / /;

Tests:

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

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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare three string matching methods in JavaScript:

1. `String.includes()`
2. `RegExp.test()`
3. `String.match()`

These methods are used to search for a substring within a larger string.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a large string variable `string` containing 2083 repetitions of the character 'a', followed by a space and the URL query parameter separator '?query='. The `regex` variable is defined using a regular expression that matches a single space character.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only runs in the JavaScript environment, without considering any HTML-specific features or optimizations.

**Library: RegExp**

The `RegExp` library is used to define the regular expression pattern for matching spaces (`/ /`). The `RegExp.test()` method takes a string and a regular expression as arguments and returns a boolean value indicating whether the string matches the pattern. In this benchmark, `RegExp.test()` is used to test if a space character exists in the `string` variable.

**String.match()**

The `String.match()` method takes a regular expression pattern and a string as arguments and returns an array containing the first match or null if no match is found. However, since we are only interested in whether a space character exists, this approach may not be necessary.

**Options Compared**

Here's what's being compared:

* `String.includes()`: This method uses the `includes()` algorithm, which works by iterating through the string and checking if the substring (in this case, a single space) is present. It's likely to be slower than the other two methods.
* `RegExp.test()`: As mentioned earlier, this method uses a regular expression pattern to search for matches in the string.
* `String.match()`: Although not necessary for this benchmark, `String.match()` can be used as an alternative to `RegExp.test()`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* **String.includes()**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to implement, and likely to be faster than regular expression-based approaches.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the algorithm's nature and may not perform well on very large strings.
* **RegExp.test()**:
	+ Pros: Efficiently searches for matches in a string using regular expressions, which can handle complex patterns.
	+ Cons: May require more overhead due to the use of regular expressions and may not be suitable for simple substring matching tasks.
* **String.match()**:
	+ Pros: Can be used as an alternative to `RegExp.test()` and might be faster in some cases.
	+ Cons: May not be necessary for this specific benchmark, and its performance may depend on the complexity of the pattern.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these methods, it's essential to consider factors like:

* String length and size
* Pattern complexity
* Hardware architecture (e.g., x86, ARM)
* JavaScript engine optimizations

These factors can affect the performance of each method, so benchmarking is crucial to determine the best approach for specific use cases.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string matching in JavaScript include:

* `String.indexOf()`: Finds the first occurrence of a substring and returns its index.
* `Substring-based approaches`: Manual implementation using loops and conditional checks can be faster but more error-prone than built-in methods.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/115.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/115.0.1901.188

Browser/OS: Chrome 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	1506789.5 Ops/sec
String.includes	6789781.5 Ops/sec
String.match	1075793.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String includes space (regex vs String.includes) 2 (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 26 days ago):