Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Regex vs startsWith
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Regex vs startsWith
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Regex
const testString = 'QualtricsEOS|SV_7amJ2Dww8cWdtQh | FS_2zd0QZhebl4cRHT'; testString.match(/^QualtricsEOS\|(SV_[0-9a-zA-Z]{11,15})\|(FS_[0-9a-zA-Z]{11,15})$/);
startsWith
const testString = 'QualtricsEOS|SV_7amJ2Dww8cWdtQh | FS_2zd0QZhebl4cRHT'; testString.startsWith('QualtricsEOS');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Regex
startsWith
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
9 days ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 147 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
Regex
7398535.5 Ops/sec
startsWith
26543598.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The `Name` field is `Regex vs startsWith`, indicating that this benchmark compares the performance of regular expressions (`Regex`) with the `startsWith` method. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Regular Expressions (Regex)** * Pros: + Can be used to match complex patterns, including character classes, quantifiers, and anchors. + Can be used for validation and parsing. * Cons: + Can be slower than other methods due to the overhead of compiling and executing regular expressions. 2. **startsWith Method** * Pros: + Generally faster than regular expressions since it's a built-in method that can be optimized by the browser engine. + Simplified syntax, making it easier to read and maintain. **Other Considerations** When deciding between regular expressions and the `startsWith` method, consider the following: * If you need to perform complex pattern matching or validation, regular expressions might be a better choice. However, if you only need to check if a string starts with a specific substring, the `startsWith` method is likely faster and more efficient. * Regular expressions can be sensitive to character encoding and Unicode normalization issues. In contrast, the `startsWith` method is generally more robust in these areas. **Library and Special JS Feature** In this benchmark, there doesn't appear to be any external library being used, nor are any special JavaScript features or syntax (like async/await, ES6 modules, etc.) being utilized. **Alternatives** If you wanted to test other approaches for string matching, some alternatives could include: * **String.includes()**: Similar to `startsWith`, but searches for a substring anywhere in the string, not just at the beginning. * **Substring Matching with String.indexOf() or String.lastIndexOf()**: These methods search for a specific character sequence within a string and return its index. However, they might be slower than regular expressions due to their more complex implementation. * **Regular expression alternatives**: Some browsers may have additional, faster regular expression engines built-in (e.g., V8 in Chrome). For this particular benchmark, the main choice between `Regex` and `startsWith` is a trade-off between performance and complexity. The `startsWith` method is likely to be faster for simple string matching tasks, while regular expressions provide more flexibility for complex pattern matching.
Related benchmarks:
Case Insensitive RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs String.startsWith
string startswith vs regexp test
startsWith vs regex hash
RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match vs String.startsWith
includes with regex vs startWith
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?