Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes larger

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world123!";
var regex = /(abc|bcd|cde|def|efg|fgh|ghi|hij|ijk|jkl|klm|lmn|mno|nop|opq|pqr|qrs|rst|stu|tuv|uvw|vwx|wxy|xyz|012|123|234|345|456|567|678|789)+/i;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("abc", "bcd", "cde", "def", "efg", "fgh", "ghi", "hij", "ijk", "jkl", "klm", "lmn", "mno", "nop", "opq", "pqr", "qrs", "rst", "stu", "tuv", "uvw", "vwx", "wxy", "xyz", "012", "123", "234", "345", "456", "567", "678", "789")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes

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 dive into the explanation.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `String.includes` and a custom regular expression (regex) implementation, `RegEx.test`. The purpose of this comparison is to determine which method is more efficient for matching multiple substrings within a given string.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`String.includes`**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that searches for a specified value (in this case, the substrings "abc", "bcd", etc.) within a string. It returns `true` if the value is found and `false` otherwise.
2. **Custom Regex Implementation (`RegEx.test`)**: This implementation uses a regex pattern to match any of the specified substrings ("abc", "bcd", etc.). The `/i` flag at the end of the pattern makes it case-insensitive.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`String.includes`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in method, so it's likely to be highly optimized.
		+ Simple to understand and implement.
		+ Works well for small to medium-sized sets of substrings.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient for large sets of substrings or complex patterns.
2. **Custom Regex Implementation (`RegEx.test`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more flexible and powerful than `String.includes` for complex matching scenarios.
		+ Allows for custom optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual implementation and maintenance.
		+ May be less efficient than `String.includes` for simple cases.

**Library: String.prototype.includes**

The `String.prototype.includes` method is a built-in JavaScript method that searches for a specified value within a string. It's implemented in C++ by the V8 JavaScript engine and is highly optimized.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of `i` flags at the end of the regex pattern makes it case-insensitive, which might be a common optimization technique in regex implementations.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative regex implementation methods could include:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.some()`**: Instead of implementing a custom regex method, you could use the `some()` method on an array of substrings to check for inclusion.
2. **Using `String.match()`**: The `match()` method can be used to search for a regular expression within a string and returns an array of matches.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and readability, but they could provide viable options depending on the specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.1.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	1335680.4 Ops/sec
String.includes	4045273.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes larger (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

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):