Benchmark: We test stuff! - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("Hello");
String.match
string.match("Hello");
Equal
string === "Hello world!"

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON object represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small code snippet designed to measure the performance of specific parts of the code. The benchmark definition includes:

* `Script Preparation Code`: This section defines a JavaScript function that will be executed before each test case. In this case, it simply declares two variables: `string` with the value `"Hello world!"`, and `regex` as a regular expression `/Hello/`.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case is defined by an object containing:

* `Benchmark Definition`: This specifies the actual JavaScript code that will be executed to measure its performance. There are four test cases:
	+ `RegEx.test(regex)`: Tests the performance of using a regular expression (`regex`) with the `test()` method.
	+ `string.includes("Hello")`: Measures the execution time of checking if the string `string` includes the substring `"Hello"`.
	+ `string.match("Hello")`: Tests the performance of using the `match()` method to find the first occurrence of the substring `"Hello"` in the `string`.
	+ `string === "Hello world!"`: Compares the value of `string` with a string literal `"Hello world!"`.

**Library and Library Purpose**

In the provided benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned or used. However, it's worth noting that the regular expression `/Hello/` is created using a JavaScript syntax feature called "raw strings" (also known as "unescaped string literals"). This syntax allows you to write regex patterns without escaping the special characters.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The use of raw strings (`var regex = /Hello/;`) is an example of a special JS feature. It's used to avoid having to escape the `/` character in the regular expression, making it easier to write and read regex patterns.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, four different approaches are compared:

1. `RegEx.test(regex)`: Using the `test()` method with a regular expression.
2. `string.includes("Hello")`: Using the `includes()` method to check if a substring is present in a string.
3. `string.match("Hello")`: Using the `match()` method to find the first occurrence of a substring.
4. `string === "Hello world!"`: A simple equality comparison using the `===` operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

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

1. **RegEx.test(regex)**:
	* Pros: Can be more flexible for complex regex patterns.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of compiling the regular expression.
2. **string.includes("Hello")**:
	* Pros: Fast and simple, as it only requires a single string comparison.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for cases where you need to find multiple occurrences or complex regex patterns.
3. **string.match("Hello")**:
	* Pros: Similar to `includes()`, but can return an array of matches if desired.
	* Cons: May be slower than `includes()` due to the overhead of creating a match object.
4. **string === "Hello world!"**:
	* Pros: Extremely fast and simple, as it only requires a single equality comparison.
	* Cons: Limited in its usefulness, as it only checks for exact equality.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, some other alternatives you could consider include:

* Using `RegExp.test()` instead of `RegEx.test()`.
* Adding more test cases that cover different scenarios, such as finding multiple occurrences or using regex patterns with special characters.
* Comparing the performance of other JavaScript methods for string manipulation, such as `indexOf()`, `split()`, or `substring()`.

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	12001094.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	30057264.0 Ops/sec
String.match	6943584.5 Ops/sec
Equal	29838152.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

We test stuff! (version: 0)

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

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

Equal

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):