Benchmark: str.match vs str.Split - @

Script Preparation code:

string = "Thisisabenchmark@totest.matching";
regex = /@/;

Tests:

String.split
string.split("@")
Regex.match
string.match(regex)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.split
Regex.match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.split	6808897.0 Ops/sec
Regex.match	3819031.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **String.split()**: This method splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified separator (in this case, the space character).
2. **Regex.match()**: This method tests if a string matches a regular expression pattern.

In this specific benchmark, both methods are being tested against splitting a single string at the spaces, but with different inputs: one with a whitespace character and another without.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* String.split() vs Regex.match()

These two approaches have different pros and cons:

**String.split():**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Fast execution time (O(n) where n is the length of the string)
* Native JavaScript method, so no additional library dependencies

Cons:

* Requires a specified separator (in this case, space), which might not always be available or predictable
* May not handle edge cases like split() with an empty separator

**Regex.match():**

Pros:

* More flexible and powerful for complex string matching
* Can be used to extract specific patterns from strings
* Native JavaScript method, so no additional library dependencies

Cons:

* Requires a regular expression pattern, which can be difficult to understand and create (especially for beginners)
* May have slower execution time compared to String.split() due to the overhead of compiling and executing the regex pattern

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your use case. If you need to perform simple string splitting or pattern matching, String.split() might be a better choice. However, if you need more complex string manipulation or want to leverage the power of regular expressions, Regex.match() is worth considering.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, neither library (i.e., JavaScript's built-in String.prototype methods) is used explicitly. The test cases only use the native String and Regex constructors.

**Special JS features/syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It primarily focuses on the comparison of two fundamental string manipulation approaches.

**Alternative approaches**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a dedicated string processing library like js-string-pipes
* Employing a more advanced string manipulation technique, such as using `Array.prototype.reduce()` or `Array.prototype.map()`
* Exploring other regex-related methods, like `String.prototype.replace()` or `Regex.prototype.exec()`

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same simplicity and performance guarantees as native JavaScript methods.

Related benchmarks:

str.match vs str.Split - @ (version: 0)

Test String.match with regex against String.split with string. We are splitting a string at the spaces.

Comparing performance of: String.split vs Regex.match

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.split

Regex.match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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