Benchmark: .test vs .match vs modulo(string)

Script Preparation code:

var string = "6.12";
var regex = /.\d1$/;

Tests:

.test
regex.test(String(string));
.match
String(string).match(regex);
modulo
Math.floor(string * 100 % 100 / 10) === 1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.test
.match
modulo

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!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares three different approaches for performing a specific operation on a string: testing, matching, and modulo (remainder) operations.

**Benchmark Test**

The benchmark test is designed to measure the performance of these three approaches:

1. **Testing**: Using the `test()` method to check if a string matches a regular expression.
2. **Matching**: Using the `match()` method to search for a pattern in a string.
3. **Modulo**: Performing arithmetic operations on the input string, specifically calculating the remainder when divided by 100 and then taking the floor value (i.e., rounding down).

**Options Compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their execution speed:

* `.test()`: Uses the `test()` method to check if a string matches a regular expression.
* `.match()`: Uses the `match()` method to search for a pattern in a string.
* Modulo: Performs arithmetic operations on the input string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

1. **Testing (.test)**:
	* Pros: Simple and easy to read, as it's just a matter of comparing two strings using `===`.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional overhead of creating a regular expression object.
2. **Matching (.match)**:
	* Pros: Faster than `.test()`, as it doesn't require creating an additional regular expression object. However, it still involves some overhead for string manipulation and regex evaluation.
	* Cons: Returns an array with match results if the pattern is found, which may not be desirable in all cases.
3. **Modulo**:
	* Pros: Generally faster than both `.test()` and `.match()`, as it involves simple arithmetic operations without any additional overhead from regular expressions or string manipulation.
	* Cons: May require more code to set up the arithmetic operation correctly.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark test, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the `String` object is used throughout the tests, which suggests that it's a standard JavaScript object provided by the browser or environment.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark test. It only involves basic string manipulation and arithmetic operations.

**Other Alternatives**

For alternative approaches to perform similar operations, consider:

* Using `String.prototype.includes()` instead of `.test()` or `.match()`.
* Employing more advanced string manipulation techniques, such as using `String.prototype.replace()` or `String.prototype.split()`.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `RegExp.test()` or `Array.prototype.some()` for more efficient matching and filtering operations.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

.test vs .match vs modulo(string) (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: .test vs .match vs modulo

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

.test

.match

modulo

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):