Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes incasesensitive

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regExp = RegExp('hello', 'i');

Tests:

RegEx.test
regExp.test(string);
String.includes
string.toLowerCase().includes("hello");

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 break down the benchmark and its test cases to understand what's being measured and compared.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares two approaches for searching "hello" in a string: `String.includes` with case-insensitivity and `RegExp.test` with case-insensitivity.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **RegEx.test**: Measures the performance of using `RegExp.test` to search for "hello" (case-insensitive) in the pre-prepared string.
2. **String.includes**: Measures the performance of using `string.toLowerCase().includes("hello")` to search for "hello" (case-insensitive) in the pre-prepared string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **RegExp.test with case-insensitivity**: This approach uses a regular expression with the 'i' flag to perform a case-insensitive search.
* **String.includes with case-insensitivity**: This approach converts the input string to lowercase using `toLowerCase()` and then uses `includes()` to search for "hello" (case-insensitive).

**Pros and Cons**

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

* **RegExp.test with case-insensitivity**:
	+ Pros: More efficient for simple regex patterns, can be faster due to native engine optimizations.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient for complex regex patterns or large datasets.
* **String.includes with case-insensitivity**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand and implement, may be more readable for some developers.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than RegExp.test due to the additional overhead of string manipulation.

**Library**

Both test cases use built-in JavaScript libraries:

* **RegExp**: A native JavaScript library for working with regular expressions.
* **String.includes**: A native JavaScript method for checking if a substring exists within a string.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing the performance of two different approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **ES6 String.prototype.includes() with case-insensitivity**: This approach would use a more modern implementation of `includes()` that may offer better performance.
* **Native support for case-insensitive string matching**: Some programming languages and libraries provide native support for case-insensitive string matching. However, this is not the focus of the provided benchmark.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach often depends on the specific use case, personal preference, and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	14272136.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	33059770.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes

Created: one year 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):