Benchmark: String.match vs. RegEx.test1

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!Hello world!Hello world!Hello world!";
var regex = /[A-Z][a-z]+ [a-z]+/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.match
string.match(regex);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
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 provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. `regex.test(string)`: This method is part of the RegExp object, which tests if a string matches a regular expression pattern.
2. `string.match(regex)`: This method returns an array of matched strings, or null if no match is found.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* `regex.test(string)`
	+ Pros:
		- Simple and straightforward to understand.
		- Less overhead due to fewer function calls.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as efficient for large strings or complex patterns.
		- Only returns a boolean result, which might not be suitable for all use cases.
* `string.match(regex)`
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and powerful, as it can match multiple substrings.
		- Returns an array of matched strings, which can be useful in certain scenarios.
	+ Cons:
		- More overhead due to additional function calls and string manipulation.

**Library and Purpose**

The `RegExp` object is a built-in JavaScript library that provides regular expression matching capabilities. The `test()` method is used to test if a string matches a pattern, while the `match()` method returns an array of matched strings.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. Both methods use standard JavaScript syntax and libraries (RegExp).

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to optimize these approaches further, some alternatives might include:

* Using a more efficient regular expression pattern or escaping characters.
* Implementing the `test()` method using a native implementation (e.g., via V8's internal regex engine).
* Using an alternative string manipulation library like String.prototype.replace() or Intl.Collator.
* Exploring asynchronous programming techniques to improve concurrency and reduce overhead.

However, these alternatives are not directly comparable to the current benchmark, which focuses on comparing the performance of `test()` and `match()` methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	6033133.5 Ops/sec
String.match	5061073.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String.match vs. RegEx.test1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.match

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

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):