Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs1531515. String.match

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("Hello");
dgsdgsdgd
string.search("Hello");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test, specifically comparing the performance of three different approaches: `regex.test()`, `string.includes()`, and `string.match()`. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is the fastest in terms of executions per second.

**Options Compared**

1. **`regex.test()`**: This method is part of the JavaScript Regular Expression (RegExp) object, introduced in ECMAScript 2018. It's a simple way to check if a string contains a match for a given regular expression.
2. **`string.includes()`**: This method is an array method on strings, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It returns `true` if the string contains any match of the provided value or pattern.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`regex.test()`**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, intuitive API.
	* Cons: May be slower due to regular expression parsing and compilation overhead.
2. **`string.includes()`**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, fast, and easy to use.
	* Cons: Not as powerful as `regex.test()`, may not cover all edge cases.

3. **`string.match()`**: This method is an array method on strings, also introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It returns a match array containing the entire matched string or null if no match is found.
	* Pros: Fast and lightweight, can be used with regular expressions or simple patterns.
	* Cons: May not work as expected with complex patterns or edge cases.

**Library Used**

None. This benchmark uses built-in JavaScript features and libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Analysis**

The script preparation code creates a string variable `string` containing the text "Hello world!". A regular expression object `regex` is also created with the pattern `/Hello/`. This suggests that the tests will be comparing the performance of different methods for searching and matching patterns in this specific string.

**Other Alternatives**

If not using `regex.test()` or `string.includes()`, other alternatives could include:

* Using a dedicated string matching library like `String.prototype.matchAll()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2019)
* Implementing custom string matching algorithms, such as Boyer-Moore or Knuth-Morris-Pratt
* Utilizing native Web APIs like `WebAssembly TextEncoding` for efficient text processing

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be supported by all browsers or environments, and their performance may vary depending on the specific use case.

**Benchmarking Considerations**

When benchmarking JavaScript code, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Loop unrolling and caching
* Use of `const` and `let`
* Variable scope and hoisting
* Browser-specific optimizations and features

In this case, the tests are likely focused on measuring the performance difference between different string matching methods, but a more comprehensive benchmarking analysis would also consider these additional factors.

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	11903905.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	29738336.0 Ops/sec
String.match	5597428.0 Ops/sec
dgsdgsdgd	8574706.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs1531515. String.match (version: 0)

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

dgsdgsdgd

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):