var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /Hello/;
regex.test(string);
string.includes("Hello");
string.match("Hello");
string.search("Hello");
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
RegEx.test | |
String.includes | |
String.match | |
String.search |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
RegEx.test | 9760300.0 Ops/sec |
String.includes | 24430248.0 Ops/sec |
String.match | 5470978.5 Ops/sec |
String.search | 6106292.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark is comparing four different ways to search for a substring in a string:
String.includes()
RegEx.test()
String.match()
String.search()
These methods are all used to find the index of the first occurrence of a substring within a larger string.
Options Compared
The benchmark is comparing the performance of each method across different browsers and devices. The options being compared include:
This allows the benchmark to simulate real-world scenarios and provide more accurate results.
Pros and Cons
Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each method:
String.includes()
, it can be slower and more resource-intensive due to the complexity of regular expression parsing.RegEx.test()
but returns an array instead of a boolean value if multiple matches are found. It's generally considered faster than RegEx.test()
but may require more memory.RegEx.test()
, suitable for multiple matchesString.includes()
String.includes()
but returns the index of the first match instead of a boolean value if no match is found.String.includes()
, suitable for finding the first occurrenceLibrary and Purpose
The RegEx
library is used in conjunction with the test()
method. The purpose of this library is to provide regular expression matching capabilities, which allows developers to search for patterns in strings.
Special JS Feature/Syntax
There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark.
Other Alternatives
If you're looking for alternative methods to compare, some options include:
String.prototype.indexOf()
instead of String.includes()
However, it's worth noting that the choices above may not provide the same level of flexibility or performance as the methods being tested in this benchmark.