Benchmark: bf8d3031-a09a-4b1e-a251-2630e7f45e07

Tests:

Includes
['/auth/ui/login', '/auth/aam/v3/logout'].includes('/auth/aam/v3/logout');
Match
'/auth/aam/v3/logout'.match(/(^\/auth)(\/((?!ui)([a-zA-Z]+))\/)((v\d\/)?)(login|logout$)/g);
Test
/(^\/auth)(\/((?!ui)([a-zA-Z]+))\/)((v\d\/)?)(login|logout$)/g.test('/auth/aam/v3/logout');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
Match
Test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what is being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON contains three benchmark definitions:

1. `Includes`: This test checks if the string `/auth/aam/v3/logout` is included in the array `['/auth/ui/login', '/auth/aam/v3/logout']`.
2. `Match`: This test uses a regular expression to match the string `/auth/aam/v3/logout` against the pattern `/(^\\/auth)(\\/((?!ui)([a-zA-Z]+))\\/)((v\\d\\/)?)(login|logout$)/g`. The `^` symbol at the start of the pattern indicates the start of the string, while the `$` symbol at the end indicates the end of the string.
3. `Test`: This test is similar to the `Match` test but uses the `test()` method instead of `match()`. It also checks if the string `/auth/aam/v3/logout` matches the same regular expression pattern.

**Options Compared**

The three tests are comparing different approaches:

*   `Includes`: This approach checks for a simple inclusion test, which can be fast but may not be as accurate as other methods.
*   `Match`: This approach uses a regular expression to match the string, which provides more flexibility and accuracy than a simple inclusion test. However, it also has overhead due to the complexity of the pattern.
*   `Test`: This approach is similar to the `Match` test but uses the `test()` method instead. It's likely that this method is faster than `match()`, but may not be as accurate.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   `Includes`:
    *   Pros: Fast, simple, easy to understand.
    *   Cons: May not be accurate due to potential false positives or negatives.
*   `Match`:
    *   Pros: More flexible, accurate than `Includes`, provides more control over the matching process.
    *   Cons: Can be slow due to the complexity of the pattern and overhead of regular expression processing.
*   `Test`:
    *   Pros: May be faster than `match()`, still provides a way to match against the pattern.
    *   Cons: Less accurate than `match()` due to differences in behavior between `test()` and `match()`.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in the provided JSON data, but we can infer that MeasureThat.net is using JavaScript's built-in methods (like `includes()`, `match()`, `test()`) for benchmarking purposes. No special JavaScript features or syntax are used explicitly in the tests.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to these tests, here are a few options:

*   **Regex testing**: You can write custom test cases using regex patterns and compare their performance with the existing tests.
*   **Custom implementation**: You can implement your own custom functions for each test case and compare their performance. This might be more accurate than using built-in JavaScript methods but would require additional development effort.
*   **Alternative matching algorithms**: Depending on the specific use case, you might consider using alternative matching algorithms like Aho-Corasick or Knuth-Morris-Pratt for more efficient string matching.

Keep in mind that these alternatives will likely add complexity to your benchmarking process and may not provide significant performance improvements unless they're specifically designed for the task at hand.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.79 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Includes	752791360.0 Ops/sec
Match	6491839.5 Ops/sec
Test	16780670.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

bf8d3031-a09a-4b1e-a251-2630e7f45e07 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs Match vs Test

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

Match

Test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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