Benchmark: str.match vs str.Split(regex)

Script Preparation code:

string = "This is a benchmark to test if matching a regex is faster that splitting a string";
regex = /\S+/gi;

Tests:

String.split
string.split(/\S+/gi)
Regex.match
string.match(regex)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.split
Regex.match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two different approaches to process a string: `String.match` with a regular expression (regex) against `String.split` with a regex.

Specifically, the test checks which approach is faster for splitting a string at spaces. The input string and regex are defined in the "Script Preparation Code": `string = "This is a benchmark to test if matching a regex is faster that splitting a string"; regex = /\\S+/gi;`.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **String.match**: This method returns all matches of the regex pattern within the string, ignoring empty strings.
2. **String.split**: This method splits the string into an array of substrings at each occurrence of the regex pattern.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **String.match**:
	+ Pros: Allows for more flexibility in processing the resulting match (e.g., accessing matched groups).
	+ Cons: Returns all matches, which may be unnecessary if only one space is expected. It also requires iterating over the matches to extract individual spaces.
* **String.split**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient for splitting a string at fixed points (like spaces). It's also easier to read and understand, as it directly returns an array of substrings.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for processing multiple matching points or non-fixed splits.

**Other considerations**

* The `i` flag in the regex (`/\\S+/gi`) makes the match case-insensitive and global (i.e., finds all matches). If you remove this flag, the test might not accurately represent real-world usage.
* There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string manipulation include:

1. **String.replace()**: Replaces occurrences of a regex pattern with a new string. This could be used to replace all spaces with a fixed value.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: A functional approach to aggregating an array of substrings into a single string, separated by the original splits.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not directly address the specific comparison between `String.match` and `String.split`, but they demonstrate alternative approaches to handling strings in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.split	902947.1 Ops/sec
Regex.match	1034838.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

str.match vs str.Split(regex) (version: 0)

Test String.match with regex against String.split with regex. We are splitting a string at the spaces.

Comparing performance of: String.split vs Regex.match

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.split

Regex.match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):