Benchmark: arr include vs endsWith with ext extraction vs regex

Script Preparation code:

var source = 'foo.jsx'
var arr = ['.ts', '.tsx', '.js', '.jsx']
var re = /\.[t,j]sx?$/

Tests:

endsWith
var sourceWithoutExt = source.endsWith(".ts") || source.endsWith(".tsx") || source.endsWith(".js") || source.endsWith(".jsx")
arr
var ext = source.slice(source.lastIndexOf('.')) arr.includes(ext)
regex
source.search(re)
regex 2
re.test(source)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
endsWith
arr
regex
regex 2

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 break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different approaches to check if a file extension matches a specific pattern. The test cases are designed to compare the performance of:

1. `endsWith` method
2. Using the `includes()` method with extracted file extensions
3. Using regular expressions (`search` and `test` methods)

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* `endsWith`: checks if the file name ends with a specific extension (`.ts`, `.tsx`, `.js`, or `.jsx`)
* `arr.includes(ext)`: extracts the file extension from the file name using `slice()` and then uses the `includes()` method to check if it matches one of the expected extensions
* Regular Expressions (`source.search(re)` and `re.test(source)`): use a pattern to match the file name against the expected extensions

**Pros and Cons**

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

* `endsWith`: Simple, straightforward, and efficient. However, it may not work correctly for edge cases (e.g., files with no extension or multiple consecutive extensions).
* `arr.includes(ext)`: More flexible than `endsWith` but also more complex. It can handle edge cases like files with no extension or multiple consecutive extensions.
* Regular Expressions:
	+ Pros: Highly flexible, can match complex patterns, and is language-agnostic.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of compiling and executing regular expressions. May not work correctly for all file systems or encodings.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `includes()` method is used as a part of the JavaScript built-in object (not an external library). The `slice()` function is also used as a built-in method.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other advanced JavaScript features, some alternatives include:

* Modern JavaScript: Some benchmarks may use newer JavaScript features like async/await, arrow functions, or classes to measure performance improvements.
* WebAssembly: This benchmark might be rewritten using WebAssembly (WASM) for improved performance and compatibility.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create your own microbenchmarks similar to MeasureThat.net, consider the following:

1. Use a testing framework like Jest or Mocha to write and run benchmarks.
2. Utilize a library like `micro-benchmark` or `benchmark` to simplify benchmarking.
3. Experiment with different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) or browsers to compare performance variations.

Keep in mind that creating high-quality benchmarks requires careful consideration of factors like code complexity, data variability, and system overhead.

Related benchmarks:

arr include vs endsWith with ext extraction vs regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: endsWith vs arr vs regex vs regex 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

endsWith

arr

regex

regex 2

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):