Benchmark: ac782c1a-7fed-4460-9db0-38147e3f0280

Script Preparation code:

var pattern = new RegExp(/(^\/auth)(\/((?!ui)([a-zA-Z]+))\/)((v\d\/)?)(login|logout$)/, 'g');

Tests:

Includes
['/auth/ui/login', '/auth/aam/v3/logout'].includes('/auth/aam/v3/logout');
Match
'/auth/aam/v3/logout'.match(pattern);
Test
pattern.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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and its test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript regular expression matching using the ` RegExp` constructor. The goal is to compare different approaches for matching a specific pattern against a set of input strings.

**Regular Expression Pattern**

The pattern defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section is:
```javascript
var pattern = new RegExp(/(^\\/auth)(\\/((?!ui)([a-zA-Z]+))\\/)((v\\d\\/)?)(login|logout$)/, 'g');
```
This pattern matches any string that starts with `"/auth/"`, followed by an optional sequence of characters (`(?!ui)([a-zA-Z]+)`), and then either:

* A version number (`(v\d+/?)` followed by the string "login"
* Or a logout operation (`login|logout$`)

The `'g'` flag at the end makes the pattern search for all matches in the string, not just the first one.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Includes**: Checks if the input string `'/auth/aam/v3/logout'` is included in a list of strings (`['/auth/ui/login', '/auth/aam/v3/logout']`).
2. **Match**: Tests if the pattern matches the input string `'/auth/aam/v3/logout'`.
3. **Test**: Tests the pattern against an individual input string, using the `test()` method.

**Comparison and Considerations**

The benchmark compares different approaches to regular expression matching:

* Using a simple string search (no RegExp) vs.
* Using a RegExp object with the `'g'` flag
* Using the `match()` or `test()` methods on the RegExp object

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Simple String Search**: Pros: easy to implement, fast execution time; Cons: may not cover all cases (e.g., version numbers), vulnerable to security issues.
2. **RegExp Object with 'g' Flag**: Pros: more efficient than simple string search, covers more cases; Cons: slower execution time due to the `g` flag, more complex implementation.
3. **match() or test() Methods**: Pros: convenient for matching single strings; Cons: slower execution time compared to RegExp object, may not cover all cases.

**Library and Special JS Features**

No specific libraries are mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, the use of regular expressions (`RegExp` constructor) is a standard JavaScript feature.

If you're interested in exploring alternatives, some other approaches for regular expression matching include:

* Using the `String.prototype.includes()` method
* Implementing your own string search algorithm (e.g., using Boyer-Moore algorithm)
* Utilizing external libraries or frameworks that provide optimized regular expression engines (e.g., RegEx.js)

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have varying performance characteristics, trade-offs, and implementation complexities.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.80 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Includes	113357488.0 Ops/sec
Match	4912488.0 Ops/sec
Test	8895569.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ac782c1a-7fed-4460-9db0-38147e3f0280 (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):