Benchmark: compare vs match

Tests:

match
let n = 100000; let result; const protocol = 'https:'; for (let i = 0; i < n; ++i) { result = protocol.match(/^https.*/) ? 1 : 0; }
===
let n = 100000; let result; const protocol = 'https:'; for (let i = 0; i < n; ++i) { result = protocol === 'https:' ? 1 : 0; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
match
===

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explain what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

The website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing different approaches for various operations. The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: "compare" and "match".

**What are we testing?**

We're testing two approaches for comparing a string with a regular expression pattern:

1. `match()`: This method returns `true` if the string matches the pattern, or `false` otherwise.
2. `===` (equality operator): This operator checks if the strings are equal.

**Options compared**

The options being compared in these test cases are:

* `match()` vs `===`
* Different string values (e.g., "https:", "http:")
* Regular expression patterns (e.g., "^https:")

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. `match()`:
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it uses a specialized algorithm for regular expression matching.
		+ Can handle more complex pattern matching scenarios.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of compiling the regular expression pattern.
		+ Can be less intuitive for simple string comparisons.
2. `===` (equality operator):
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and intuitive, making it easy to understand and use.
		+ Often faster, as it's a built-in operator with optimized performance.
	* Cons:
		+ May not handle complex pattern matching scenarios correctly.
		+ Can be less efficient for large strings or regular expression patterns.

**Libraries used**

In the provided benchmark test cases, none of them explicitly use any JavaScript libraries. However, `match()` is built into the JavaScript language and relies on the ECMAScript standard for regular expression matching.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark for other string comparison operations, some alternative approaches could include:

* Using `indexOf()` with a negative index value to check if the string is not found
* Utilizing `includes()` (if supported by your JavaScript version) for substring matching
* Implementing custom string comparison functions using bitwise operations or hashing

For regular expression pattern matching, you might consider using libraries like `regex-test` or implementing your own optimized algorithm.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not necessarily better or worse than the approaches being tested; they simply offer different trade-offs and characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

compare vs match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: match vs ===

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

match

===

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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