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

Script Preparation code:

var string = "12 CACAUSD";
var regex = /USD/;

Tests:

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

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 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests three approaches to search for the string "USD" in a given string:

1. `RegEx.test()`: This method uses regular expressions (regex) to search for the specified pattern in the input string.
2. `String.includes()`: This method checks if the input string includes the specified substring.
3. `String.match()`: This method searches for the first occurrence of the specified pattern in the input string.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach across different browsers (Safari 17) and devices (Desktop).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **RegEx.test()**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and powerful than `String.includes()` and `String.match()`.
		+ Can perform complex searches with multiple patterns.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of compiling regular expressions.
2. **String.includes()**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and lightweight, making it faster than regex-based approaches.
		+ Suitable for simple substring matching tasks.
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than regex-based approaches, as it only searches for exact matches.
3. **String.match()**
	* Pros:
		+ Similar to `RegEx.test()` but with fewer features and less flexibility.
		+ Can be faster than regex-based approaches due to its simpler implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ Less powerful than `RegEx.test()` and may not support all regex features.

**Library and purpose**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. The tests are self-contained in terms of input strings, regex patterns, and JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax (none mentioned)**

There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to add additional approaches to the benchmark, some alternatives could be:

* Using a dedicated string search library like `StringSearch` or ` regex-optimizations`
* Implementing a custom search algorithm using a data structure like a trie
* Using Web Workers to parallelize the search tasks

However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the test setup and implementation.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of three common string search methods in JavaScript, highlighting their trade-offs in terms of flexibility, performance, and complexity.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.0 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	9378333.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	13275682.0 Ops/sec
String.match	10522551.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 9 months 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 29 days ago):