Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs String.indexOf v2

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello this is a text/css";
var regex = /text\/|javascript|urlencoded|json/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("javascript");
String.match
string.match("javascript");
String.indexOf
string.indexOf("javascript") !== -1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.match
String.indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of four different string manipulation methods: `Regex.test`, `String.includes`, `String.match`, and `String.indexOf`. The benchmark is designed to measure which method is the fastest on a given string input.

**Test Cases**

There are four individual test cases:

1. **`RegEx.test(string)`**: This test case measures the performance of the `Regex.test()` function, which tests whether a regular expression pattern matches at the beginning of a string.
2. **`string.includes("javascript")`**: This test case measures the performance of the `includes()` method, which checks if a substring is present in a string.
3. **`string.match("javascript")`**: This test case measures the performance of the `match()` function, which returns an array containing the matched string and its position in the original string.
4. **`string.indexOf("javascript") !== -1`**: This test case measures the performance of the `indexOf()` method with a negative value check, which finds the first occurrence of a substring in a string.

**Options Compared**

The four test cases compare the performance of different string manipulation methods:

* `Regex.test`: A regular expression-based method that tests for pattern matches at the beginning of the string.
* `String.includes`: A simple method that checks if a substring is present in the string.
* `String.match`: A function that returns an array containing the matched string and its position in the original string.
* `String.indexOf` (with negative value check): A method that finds the first occurrence of a substring in the string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Regex.test**: Pros: Can be used to test for pattern matches at the beginning of the string. Cons: May have performance overhead due to regular expression compilation.
* **String.includes**: Pros: Simple and fast, with minimal overhead. Cons: May not work well with complex patterns or edge cases.
* **String.match**: Pros: Returns an array containing the matched string and its position, which can be useful for certain use cases. Cons: Returns an empty array if no match is found, which may affect performance.
* **String.indexOf** (with negative value check): Pros: Fast and efficient, with minimal overhead. Cons: May have a small performance hit due to the extra step of checking for a negative value.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, it's likely that the `Regex.test()` function relies on the JavaScript RegExp API to compile the regular expression pattern.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned, but some test cases may rely on features like non-capturing groups (`(?:`) or character classes (`[abc]`), which are part of the RegExp syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative string manipulation methods that could be included in this benchmark include:

* Using a different regular expression engine (e.g., `RegExp.prototype.test()` instead of `Regex.test()`).
* Using a library like Lodash's `includes()` function.
* Implementing a custom string searching algorithm using bitwise operations or other techniques.

These alternatives could provide additional insights into the performance characteristics of different approaches, but they would require modifications to the benchmark code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	10337867.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	27288362.0 Ops/sec
String.match	6900165.0 Ops/sec
String.indexOf	27357452.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs String.indexOf v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs String.indexOf v2

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.match vs String.indexOf

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

String.indexOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):