Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes with array test

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world123!";
var regex = /(abc|bcd|cde|def|efg|fgh|ghi|hij|ijk|jkl|klm|lmn|mno|nop|opq|pqr|qrs|rst|stu|tuv|uvw|vwx|wxy|xyz|012|123|234|345|456|567|678|789)+/i;
var sequence = ["abc", "bcd", "cde", "def", "efg", "fgh", "ghi", "hij", "ijk", "jkl", "klm", "lmn", "mno", "nop", "opq", "pqr", "qrs", "rst", "stu", "tuv", "uvw", "vwx", "wxy", "xyz", "012", "123", "234", "345", "456", "567", "678", "789"]

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
sequence.some(word => string.toLowerCase().includes(word.toLowerCase()));

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:

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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for searching an array in a string: using a regular expression (`Regex.test`) and using the `String.includes` method with a callback function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Regex.test**: This approach uses a regular expression to search for a pattern in the string. In this case, the regex is designed to match any of the words in the `sequence` array.
2. **String.includes with callback**: This approach uses the `String.includes` method with a callback function to search for an element in the `sequence` array. The callback function converts both the string and the sequence elements to lowercase before comparing.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Regex.test**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient for large strings, as it only requires a single pass through the string.
* Can be optimized for specific patterns using techniques like regex caching and memoization.

Cons:

* May not perform well on small or medium-sized strings, due to overhead from creating and compiling the regex.
* Can be less readable and maintainable than other approaches, especially for complex regex patterns.

**String.includes with callback**

Pros:

* Often faster and more efficient than regex-based approaches, as it only requires a single pass through the string (or array).
* Can be more readable and maintainable, especially for simple searches.

Cons:

* Requires a callback function, which can add complexity to the code.
* May not perform well on very large arrays or strings, due to the overhead of creating and executing the callback functions.

**Library: RegExp**

The `RegExp` object is used in the regex-based approach. It provides methods for working with regular expressions, such as testing whether a string matches a pattern (`test()`), searching for a pattern in a string (`exec()`), and replacing text using a regex pattern (`replace()`).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other approaches that could be considered for comparing array searches in strings include:

* Using the `Array.prototype.some()` method with a callback function.
* Using the `String.indexOf()` method to search for an element in the string.
* Using a custom implementation of linear search or binary search on the string.

However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of efficiency and readability as the two options compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes with array test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

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):