Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match-Fork

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'https://langehair.com/pages/le-duo-plp-fb'
var regex = /\/pages\/le-duo-plp-fb/
var segment = '/pages/le-duo-plp-fb'

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:121.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/121.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 121 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	49650084.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	56661664.0 Ops/sec
String.match	20585702.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Description:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of three string searching methods:

1. `RegEx.test()`
2. `String.includes()`
3. `String.match()` (with a custom implementation, as indicated by the "Fork" suffix)

**What are we comparing?**

* **`RegEx.test()`**: This method is part of the JavaScript RegExp object and tests whether a string matches a regular expression.
* **`String.includes()`**: This method checks if a string contains a specified value.
* **`String.match()` (with a custom implementation)**: This method returns an array containing the first occurrence of a pattern in a string. The "Fork" suffix suggests that this implementation is not part of the standard JavaScript `String.match()` method, but rather a custom implementation.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **`RegEx.test()`**:
	+ Pros: Highly optimized for performance, takes into account word boundaries, and can handle complex regular expressions.
	+ Cons: May be overkill for simple string matching, requires creating a RegExp object, and can be slower than other methods for very short strings.
* **`String.includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple and efficient, uses optimized internal implementation, and is relatively fast.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected if the search value is not a string or is a regular expression (though this is not typically a problem in practice).
* **`String.match(Fork)`**: This custom implementation is likely slower than the standard `String.match()` method due to its additional logic. However, it provides more control over the matching process.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses Firefox 121 as the test browser, which may have optimized string searching performance.
* The "Desktop" device platform and Linux operating system are used in all tests, which may also impact results.
* The number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) is used to compare performance across browsers.

**Libraries and special JS features:**
No external libraries are mentioned in the benchmark setup code. However, `String.includes()` uses a built-in method that relies on internal optimization and optimization for performance.

The "Fork" suffix indicates that a custom implementation of `String.match()` is being used, which might require additional expertise or knowledge to understand its behavior.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of three string searching methods: `RegEx.test()`, `String.includes()`, and a custom `String.match(Fork)` implementation. The results will help determine which method is most efficient for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match-Fork (version: 0)

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

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.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):