Benchmark: search @ in email

Script Preparation code:

var string = "sbkhdbchdcqeqfvn@email.com";
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 one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark and its options in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of three different approaches for searching the `@` character in a string: using regular expressions (`regex.test()`), using the `includes()` method, and using the `match()` method. The benchmark uses a sample string containing an email address with the `@` character.

**Options Compared**

1. **Regular Expressions (regex.test())**: This approach uses a regular expression to search for the `@` character in the string.
2. **String.includes()**: This approach uses the `includes()` method, which checks if a substring is present in another string.
3. **String.match()**: This approach uses the `match()` method, which searches for a pattern (in this case, the `@` character) in a string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Regular Expressions (regex.test())**
	* Pros:
		+ Can match complex patterns with special characters.
		+ Can be used to extract data from strings.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of compiling regular expressions.
		+ Requires manual specification of the pattern, which can lead to errors if not done correctly.
2. **String.includes()**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient, as it uses a simple substring search.
		+ Easy to use and understand, with minimal overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than regex for complex patterns or large strings.
		+ Limited functionality compared to regular expressions.
3. **String.match()**
	* Pros:
		+ Similar performance to `includes()` for simple substring searches.
		+ Can be used to extract data from strings using a pattern.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than regex for complex patterns or large strings.
		+ Less flexibility compared to regular expressions.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases use an external library. The `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript method, while `regex.test()` uses the JavaScript RegExp API to execute a regular expression.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the benchmark test cases use special JS features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers and environments may support additional features like async/await, arrow functions, or classes, which are not used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to searching for the `@` character in a string might include:

1. **Using substring manipulation**: Instead of using built-in methods, you could manually iterate through the string and check each character.
2. **Using a custom algorithm**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might be able to optimize or implement a custom algorithm for searching substrings.
3. **Using a different data structure**: If performance is critical, you might consider using a more efficient data structure like a trie or a suffix tree to search for patterns.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have their own trade-offs and considerations, and may not always be faster or more efficient than the methods used in this benchmark.

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	10613312.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	27103080.0 Ops/sec
String.match	5937811.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

search @ in email (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):