Benchmark: RegEx.test vs Array.includes -- 4 options

Script Preparation code:

var appState = "active";
var regex = /inactive|background|other|another/;
var arr = ['inactive', 'background', 'other', 'another'];

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(appState);
Array.includes
arr.includes(appState);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using a regular expression (`regex.test`) and using an array's `includes()` method to check if a specific string exists in the array.

**Options Compared**

There are four options being compared:

1. **Regex.test**: Using a regular expression to search for a pattern in a string.
2. **Array.includes():** Using the `includes()` method of an array to check if a specific value exists in the array.
3. (Implicit) **String.indexOf()**: While not explicitly mentioned, we can assume that this is another option being compared, as it's similar to `Regex.test`.
4. (Implicit) **Simple String Comparison**: A straightforward comparison of the two strings using the equality operator (`===`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

* **Regex.test**:
	+ Pros: Can be highly efficient for searching specific patterns, especially with anchors (`^` and `$`) and word boundaries.
	+ Cons: Can be slow for simple string comparisons or when the pattern is not found, as it needs to scan the entire string. Also, regular expressions can be complex and difficult to read/maintain.
* **Array.includes():** 
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, especially for large arrays. It uses a binary search algorithm under the hood, making it relatively fast.
	+ Cons: May not be as straightforward to use as `String.indexOf()` or simple string comparison. Also, it's more geared towards searching values in an array rather than performing a direct string comparison.
* **String.indexOf():**
	+ Pros: Similar to `Array.includes()`, but optimized for strings instead of arrays.
	+ Cons: May have different performance characteristics depending on the platform and browser. Not explicitly mentioned as a separate option, so it's likely being compared indirectly through its similarities with `Array.includes()`.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark, aside from the built-in JavaScript functions (`regex.test`, `Array.includes()`, and `String.indexOf()`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a `for` loop or `forEach` to iterate over the array and check for the presence of the value.
* Using a custom implementation, such as a simple string search algorithm (e.g., linear search).
* Using a different data structure, like a Set, to store the values to be searched.

However, these alternatives are not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition.

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/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	13898367.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes	14863528.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs Array.includes -- 4 options (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs Array.includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

Array.includes

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):