Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs String.replace vs String.replace classic

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");
String.replace
string.replace(regex, 'test')
String.replace classic
string.replace('Hello', 'test')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.match
String.replace
String.replace classic

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare the performance of different approaches for specific tasks.

The benchmark in question tests four approaches for searching or replacing substrings within a string: `regex.test`, `String.includes`, `String.match`, `String.replace` (classic), and `String.replace`. The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest for this particular task.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON contains information about the test case, including:

* A name for the benchmark
* A description of the test (in this case, null)
* Script preparation code that sets up the variables needed for the test (`string` and `regex`)
* HTML preparation code (empty in this case)

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case is represented as an object with two properties:

* `Benchmark Definition`: The JavaScript code that performs the actual benchmarking
* `Test Name`: A descriptive name for the test

The four test cases are:

1. `RegEx.test(string);` - uses the built-in `test()` method of regular expressions to search for a substring within the string.
2. `string.includes("Hello");` - uses the `includes()` method to check if a substring exists within the string.
3. `string.match("Hello");` - uses the `match()` method to find all occurrences of a substring within the string.
4. `string.replace(regex, 'test')` - uses the `replace()` method with a regular expression to replace substrings within the string.
5. `string.replace('Hello', 'test')` - uses the `replace()` method with a literal substring to replace specific characters within the string.

**Options Compared**

The four test cases compare different approaches for searching or replacing substrings:

1. **regex.test**: Uses built-in regular expression testing, which is optimized for performance and accuracy.
2. **String.includes**: Uses the `includes()` method, which is optimized for substring searches but may not be as accurate as `test()`.
3. **String.match**: Uses the `match()` method, which finds all occurrences of a substring within the string.
4. **String.replace (classic)**: Uses the `replace()` method with a literal substring, which can be less efficient than using regular expressions.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **regex.test**
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance and accuracy
		+ Supports complex regular expression patterns
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional setup and configuration
2. **String.includes**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and easy to use
		+ Fast execution time
	* Cons:
		+ Less accurate than `test()` or `match()`
3. **String.match**
	* Pros:
		+ Finds all occurrences of a substring within the string
		+ Can be useful for specific use cases
	* Cons:
		+ May return unnecessary results (e.g., empty strings)
4. **String.replace (classic)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and easy to use
		+ Fast execution time
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient than `replace()` with regular expressions

**Library Used**

None of the test cases rely on a specific library, other than the built-in JavaScript methods (`test()`, `includes()`, `match()`, and `replace()`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that are not widely supported. The focus is on comparing different approaches for searching and replacing substrings within a string.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare other approaches for searching or replacing substrings, here are some alternatives:

* Using regular expressions with `String.prototype.replace()` instead of the built-in `replace()` method.
* Using a library like Lodash's `string.includes()` function.
* Implementing your own substring search algorithm using bitwise operations and indexing.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	5425184.5 Ops/sec
String.includes	16879302.0 Ops/sec
String.match	3475077.0 Ops/sec
String.replace	1453697.4 Ops/sec
String.replace classic	9062069.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

String.replace

String.replace classic

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):