Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes checking if https:// or http:// exists

Script Preparation code:

var string = "https://www.measurethat.com";
var regex = /^https?:\/\//;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("https://") || string.includes("http://")

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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 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 Edg/121.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	6926050.5 Ops/sec
String.includes	12580739.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using regular expressions (`regex`) and string includes (`includes`) methods to check if a URL (HTTPS or HTTP) exists in a given string. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for this specific use case.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Regular Expressions (RegEx)**: Using the `^https?:\/\/\\//` regular expression pattern to match the URL.
2. **String Includes**: Checking if the URL exists as a substring in the original string using `string.includes("https://") || string.includes("http://")`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Regular Expressions (RegEx)**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient for specific pattern matching, provides more flexibility.
	+ Cons: Requires specialized syntax, can be slower due to the overhead of compiling and executing regular expressions.
* **String Includes**:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward, no additional syntax required.
	+ Cons: May be slower than RegEx due to the overhead of searching for substrings.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also provides some useful information:

* The **Script Preparation Code** sets up a test string (`string`) and a regular expression pattern (`regex`).
* The **Html Preparation Code** is empty, indicating that no HTML-related code needs to be executed.
* The **Browser**, **DevicePlatform**, and **OperatingSystem** fields provide information about the browser and device used for each benchmark result.

**Library Used**

The `includes()` method uses the String.prototype.includes() method, which is a built-in JavaScript method. It's not a separate library, but rather a part of the standard library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The regular expression pattern (`^https?:\/\/\\//`) uses a common regex syntax, and the string includes code is straightforward JavaScript syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing the performance of RegEx and string includes methods might include:

* Using other regular expression patterns or syntaxes.
* Comparing the performance with other string manipulation methods (e.g., using indexOf() or substring()).
* Testing different browser versions or operating systems to see how they affect performance.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is focused on a specific use case, and alternative benchmarks might be necessary for more general use cases.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes checking if https:// or http:// exists (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes

Created: 11 months 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 2 months ago):