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

Script Preparation code:

var string = "W0rLd Hello world!";
var regex = /Hello/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("Hello");
String.match
string.match("Hello");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different methods to search for a substring within a string: `RegEx.test()`, `String.includes()`, and `String.match()` (specifically version 2). The test case uses a predefined JavaScript script that creates a string variable `string` with the content "W0rLd Hello world!" and a regular expression variable `regex` with the pattern "/Hello/".

**Method Overview**

### RegEx.test()

The `RegEx.test()` method tests if the string matches the regular expression. It returns `true` if there's a match, or `false` otherwise.

Pros:

* Can be used for more complex matching scenarios
* Allows specifying different flags (e.g., global, multiline)

Cons:

* Can be slower than simpler methods due to regex engine overhead

### String.includes()

The `String.includes()` method checks if the string contains the specified value. It returns `true` if found, or `false` otherwise.

Pros:

* Fast and efficient
* Simple syntax
* Works well for simple substring matching

Cons:

* May not work as expected with special characters or edge cases
* Not suitable for complex regex scenarios

### String.match()

The `String.match()` method returns an array of matches if the string matches the regular expression. If no match is found, it returns `null`.

Pros:

* Can be used for more complex matching scenarios (like capturing groups)
* Allows specifying different flags (e.g., global, multiline)

Cons:

* Returns an array or null, which can make results harder to interpret
* May not work as expected with special characters or edge cases

**Library Used**

None of the methods listed above rely on a specific library. However, if you're using a modern JavaScript environment, it's likely that `String.includes()` is optimized and provided by the browser (e.g., Chrome).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax, other than the regular expression engine.

**Other Alternatives**

If you needed to search for a substring within a string in JavaScript, some alternative approaches could include:

* Using `String.indexOf()` instead of `String.includes()`
* Creating a custom function using `String.prototype.replace()` with a callback function
* Utilizing third-party libraries like regex engines or string manipulation utilities

Keep in mind that the performance and efficiency of these alternatives may vary depending on the specific use case.

**Benchmark Results Interpretation**

The benchmark results show the execution per second (in executions/s) for each method, measured by Chrome 105 on a Windows desktop. The highest execution rate is achieved by `String.includes()`, followed closely by `RegEx.test()`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	6512453.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	16564108.0 Ops/sec
String.match	3718031.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.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 29 days ago):