Benchmark: Demo benchmark - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div>This is demo</div>

Script Preparation code:

console.log("js preparation");

Tests:

RegExp#test
/benefit/.test('Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?');
String#indexOf
'Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?'.indexOf('benefit') > -1;
String#match
!!'Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?'.match(/benefit/);
String#includes
'Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?'.includes('benefit')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegExp#test
String#indexOf
String#match
String#includes

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 break down the provided JSON data for MeasureThat.net, explaining what's being tested and comparing different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is an object that contains metadata about the test case. It includes:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark.
* `Description`: A short description of the benchmark, which points to a URL from Benchmark.js.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These are small pieces of JavaScript code that are executed before running each test case.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **RegExp#test**
	* The benchmark definition is a regular expression test: `'/benefit/.test('Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?')';`. This test checks if the ` RegExp#test()` method performs better than other string comparison methods.
	* The script preparation code logs "js preparation" to the console, and the HTML preparation code includes a simple `<div>` element.

2. **String#indexOf**
	* The benchmark definition is a string search test: `'Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?'.indexOf('benefit') > -1;`. This test checks if the ` String#indexOf()` method performs better than other comparison methods.
	* The script preparation code logs "js preparation" to the console, and the HTML preparation code includes a simple `<div>` element.

3. **String#match**
	* The benchmark definition is another string search test: `!!'Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?'.match(/benefit/);`. This test checks if the ` String#match()` method performs better than other comparison methods.
	* The script preparation code logs "js preparation" to the console, and the HTML preparation code includes a simple `<div>` element.

4. **String#includes**
	* The benchmark definition is similar to the previous two tests: `'Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?'.includes('benefit')`. This test checks if the ` String#includes()` method performs better than other comparison methods.
	* The script preparation code logs "js preparation" to the console, and the HTML preparation code includes a simple `<div>` element.

**Library and Purpose**

The tests use the following libraries:

* None of the tests explicitly require any external libraries. However, JavaScript's built-in `RegExp` and `String` objects are used in each test.
	+ `RegExp`: Used to define regular expressions for string matching.
	+ `String`: Used for string comparison methods like `indexOf()`, `match()`, and `includes()`.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmark cases. The tests are focused on comparing the performance of different string comparison methods.

**Other Alternatives**

MeasureThat.net allows users to compare different approaches, including:

* Using `===` (strict equality) for comparisons
* Using `==` (loose equality) for comparisons
* Using regular expressions for pattern matching

By running these benchmarks, users can determine which approach is the most efficient in terms of performance.

**Pros and Cons**

Each test case has its own pros and cons:

* **RegExp#test**: This test checks the performance of ` RegExp#test()`, which is a useful method for working with regular expressions. However, it may not be as commonly used as other string comparison methods.
	+ Pros: Can perform complex pattern matching.
	+ Cons: May be slower than other methods due to its overhead.
* **String#indexOf**: This test checks the performance of ` String#indexOf()`, which is a widely used method for finding substrings in strings. However, it may have performance issues with large strings or regular expressions.
	+ Pros: Widely supported and easy to use.
	+ Cons: May be slower than other methods due to its string comparison overhead.
* **String#match**: This test checks the performance of ` String#match()`, which is similar to ` RegExp#test()` but uses a different syntax for pattern matching. However, it may not be as powerful as regular expressions.
	+ Pros: Can perform simple pattern matching with a simpler syntax.
	+ Cons: May be slower than regular expression-based methods due to its simpler syntax.
* **String#includes**: This test checks the performance of ` String#includes()`, which is similar to ` String#indexOf()` but uses a different method for finding substrings. However, it may not be as widely supported or performant as other methods.
	+ Pros: Can perform simple substring matching with a simpler syntax.
	+ Cons: May be slower than other methods due to its string comparison overhead.

By running these benchmarks, users can make informed decisions about which string comparison method to use in their own code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36 OPR/40.0.2308.90

Browser/OS: Opera 40 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegExp#test	9353506.0 Ops/sec
String#indexOf	14466074.0 Ops/sec
String#match	8737213.0 Ops/sec
String#includes	13606636.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Demo benchmark (version: 0)

From https://benchmarkjs.com/

Comparing performance of: RegExp#test vs String#indexOf vs String#match vs String#includes

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegExp#test

String#indexOf

String#match

String#includes

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):