Benchmark: testeteste - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var city = 'São Paulo';
var searchText = "são paulo";

Tests:

RegExp
new RegExp(searchText, 'i').test(city)
toLowerCase
city.toLowerCase() === searchText.toLowerCase()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegExp
toLowerCase

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its various components.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches:

1. **RegExp**: A regular expression (RegExp) is used to match the input string `searchText` with a specific pattern in the string `city`. The `new RegExp(searchText, 'i').test(city)` creates a new RegExp object with the `searchText` as its pattern and the `'i'` flag for case-insensitive matching. The `test()` method then checks if the pattern matches anywhere in the `city` string.
2. **toLowerCase**: This test checks if two strings are equal after applying the `toLowerCase()` method to both of them. In this case, it compares the original `searchText` with the result of converting `searchText` and `city` to lowercase.

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, we have only two options being compared:

* RegExp (case-sensitive matching)
* toLowerCase (case-insensitive comparison)

The pros and cons of each approach are as follows:

* **RegExp**:
	+ Pros: Can handle complex pattern matching, flexible syntax.
	+ Cons: Performance may be slower due to the overhead of creating a RegExp object and executing the test.
* **toLowerCase**:
	+ Pros: Fast and simple, can be used for case-insensitive comparisons.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly if the input strings contain non-ASCII characters or special Unicode characters.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, the `RegExp` function is being used as a built-in JavaScript function. There is no external library dependency required.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes (like async/await, promise chaining, etc.) being used in these benchmarks.

Now, let's talk about other alternatives:

1. **Using a dedicated string comparison library**: Instead of relying on the `toLowerCase()` method, you could use a dedicated library like [icase](https://github.com/ximc/icase) or [stringcase](https://github.com/wkimmich/stringcase) for case-insensitive comparisons.
2. **Using a different regular expression syntax**: If performance is critical, you might consider using a more optimized regular expression syntax, such as the `u` flag (Unicode compatibility mode).
3. **Testing other matching algorithms**: Depending on your specific use case, you may want to test other string matching algorithms like Boyer-Moore or Knuth-Morris-Pratt.
4. **Using WebAssembly (WASM)**: If you're targeting a modern browser, you might consider using WASM for performance-critical benchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches depends on your specific requirements and constraints.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/118.0.2088.61

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegExp	1958725.0 Ops/sec
toLowerCase	6235076.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testeteste (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegExp vs toLowerCase

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegExp

toLowerCase

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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