Benchmark: Array.includes vs String.match

Tests:

Array.includes
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; ['foo', 'bar'].includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'bar'; ['foo', 'bar'].includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; ['foo', 'bar'].includes(testStrNotMatch);
String.match
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; testStrFirst.match(/^(foo|bar)$/); const testStrSecond = 'bar'; testStrSecond.match(/^(foo|bar)$/); const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; testStrNotMatch.match(/^(foo|bar)$/);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
String.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 benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: `Array.includes` and `String.match`. Both methods are used to match a string against multiple possibilities, but they differ in their implementation.

**Options Compared**

There are three options being compared:

1. **Array.includes**: This method checks if an array contains a specific value by iterating through its elements.
2. **String.match**: This method uses regular expressions to search for a pattern within a string.
3. (Implicit) No explicit option is given, but there's another way of doing this: using `includes` on strings. It will return the number of matches.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Array.includes**:
	* Pros: Fast, simple, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slow for large arrays if only one element is being searched, as it may have to iterate through all elements.
2. **String.match**:
	* Pros: Powerful and flexible, but can be slower than `Array.includes` due to the overhead of regular expression compilation and execution.
	* Cons: May use more system resources and is more complex to implement correctly.

**Other Considerations**

In addition to performance differences, there's also a consideration for code readability. The `String.match` approach requires knowledge of regular expressions, which can make it less accessible to beginners or those without experience with regex patterns.

**Library Used (if applicable)**

Neither `Array.includes` nor `String.match` explicitly use libraries beyond the standard JavaScript library. However, `String.match` does rely on the ECMAScript standard for regular expression support.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It relies solely on standard JavaScript methods and operations.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternatives to these approaches might include:

1. **Using a library**: Libraries like Lodash's `some()` function can provide similar functionality for arrays, but with additional features.
2. **NativeArray methods**: Some browsers and Node.js environments have built-in `includes()` method on native arrays, which might be faster than standard `Array.includes()`.
3. **Regex alternatives**: Other regex-based approaches, like using `String.indexOf()` or `String.lastIndexOf()`, could also be used for matching.

Overall, this benchmark provides a straightforward comparison of two common JavaScript methods for matching strings against multiple possibilities, highlighting the trade-offs between performance, readability, and complexity.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	415358624.0 Ops/sec
String.match	1158903.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes vs String.match (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs String.match

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.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 26 days ago):