Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes x 2

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /[wd]/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("w") || string.includes("d");
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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	6428546.5 Ops/sec
String.includes	13047922.0 Ops/sec
String.match	3847971.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark defines two string manipulation functions: `RegEx.test` and `String.includes`. The test case consists of three individual tests:

1. `RegEx.test`
2. `String.includes`
3. `String.match`

Each test case uses a predefined string (`"Hello world!"`) and a regular expression pattern (`/[wd]/`). The purpose of the benchmark is to compare the execution speed of these two functions.

**Options Compared:**

The two options being compared are:

1. **RegEx.test**: A built-in JavaScript method that tests whether a given regular expression matches at the beginning of a string.
2. **String.includes**: A built-in JavaScript method that searches for an element in a string and returns true if it is found, or false otherwise.

**Pros and Cons:**

**RegEx.test:**

Pros:

* Simple to use and understand
* Efficient implementation

Cons:

* Only checks for a match at the beginning of the string
* May not be suitable for more complex regular expression patterns

**String.includes:**

Pros:

* More flexible than RegEx.test, as it can search for any substring in the string
* Can be used with more complex regular expression patterns

Cons:

* Generally slower than RegEx.test due to its additional overhead
* May have performance issues if the input string is very large or contains many substrings

**Other Considerations:**

* The use of `String.match` as a test case is less common, but it can be useful for searching for specific patterns within strings.
* The benchmark does not consider other factors that may impact performance, such as the size of the input string, the complexity of the regular expression pattern, or the browser's configuration.

**Library and Special JS Features:**

There are no libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it is worth noting that `String.includes` uses a specialized implementation called "string searching" which is optimized for performance in certain cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only employs standard JavaScript methods and regular expressions.

**Alternatives:**

Some alternative approaches to testing string manipulation functions like `RegEx.test` and `String.includes` might include:

* Using a different programming language, such as C++ or Java, which may offer better performance for certain types of string manipulation.
* Implementing custom string searching algorithms, such as Knuth-Morris-Pratt or Boyer-Moore, which can be optimized for specific use cases.
* Using benchmarking frameworks that provide more advanced features, such as parallel execution or dynamic analysis of the benchmark results.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be applicable to this specific benchmark definition.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes x 2 (version: 0)

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

Created: 8 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 2 months ago):