Benchmark: test vs match vs startsWith vs [0]

Tests:

test
/@.*/.test("@MyVariable")
match
"@MyVariable".match(/@.*/)
startsWith
"@MyVariable".startsWith("@")
array 0
"@MyVariable"[0] === "@"

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test
match
startsWith
array 0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of four different string matching approaches: `test`, `match`, `startsWith`, and array indexing (`[0]`).

**Approaches compared:**

1. **test**: This approach uses a regular expression that matches any character at the beginning of the string.
2. **match**: This approach uses the `String.prototype.match()` method, which returns an array containing a match if one is found, or null otherwise. The regex `/@.*/` is used to match any character (`.`) at the beginning of the string (`@`).
3. **startsWith**: This approach uses the `String.prototype.startsWith()` method, which returns true if the string starts with the specified value (`"@"`).
4. **array 0**: This approach uses array indexing (`[0]`) to access the first character of the string and compare it with `"@"`.

**Pros and cons:**

*   **test**: Pros - simple and efficient for specific use cases; Cons - may not be suitable for all types of strings (e.g., null or undefined).
*   **match**: Pros - flexible and can match any pattern; Cons - slower than `startsWith` due to the overhead of the regex engine.
*   **startsWith**: Pros - faster and more efficient than `test` and `match`; Cons - may not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., matching at the end of a string).
*   **array 0**: Pros - simple and efficient for accessing the first character; Cons - may not be suitable for all types of strings (e.g., empty strings).

**Libraries and features:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON.

However, it's worth noting that `String.prototype.match()` uses a regular expression engine under the hood. If you're using a modern JavaScript engine like V8 or SpiderMonkey, this engine is highly optimized for performance.

**Other considerations:**

*   The benchmark results show that `startsWith` performs significantly better than the other approaches, which is consistent with its general behavior.
*   The `test` approach may be suitable for specific use cases where a simple match is required, but it's not recommended due to its limited flexibility and potential performance issues.
*   The `match` approach provides more flexibility than `test`, but at the cost of slower performance.

**Alternatives:**

*   For even faster string matching, you can consider using a dedicated library like `string-search` or `regex-performance`.
*   If you need to perform complex text processing tasks, consider using a dedicated library like `text-processing` or `regex-utility`.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test	53889464.0 Ops/sec
match	36346420.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	2052739840.0 Ops/sec
array 0	1271626368.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test vs match vs startsWith vs [0] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test vs match vs startsWith vs array 0

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test

match

startsWith

array 0

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):