Benchmark: Regex vs. String functions v2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var contentType = 'application/problem+json; charset=utf-8';

Tests:

String functions
(_.includes(contentType, 'application/json') || (_.startsWith(contentType, 'application/') && _.includes(contentType, '+json')))
Regex
contentType.match(/application\/json|.*\+json/);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String functions
Regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

String functions

5.1M/s

Regex

5.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ String functions	5,127,396 Ops/sec
Regex	5,098,100 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to parse a string that represents a MIME type: using regular expressions (`Regex`) versus using string functions (`String functions`).

**Options compared:**

1. **Regular Expressions (Regex)**:
	* Purpose: To match a specific pattern in the string.
	* Pros:
		+ Highly flexible and powerful for complex patterns.
		+ Can be used to extract multiple values from a single string.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of compiling and executing regex patterns.
		+ May have performance issues if not optimized properly.
2. **String Functions**:
	* Purpose: To use built-in JavaScript functions that operate on strings (e.g., `includes()`, `startsWith()`).
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster than Regex, as it avoids the overhead of compiling and executing regex patterns.
		+ Easier to read and maintain for simple string operations.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Library usage**: The benchmark uses Lodash's `_.includes()` function in one of the test cases. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers, including string operations. Its use adds another layer of complexity to the benchmark.
2. **JavaScript features and syntax**: The benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other methods for parsing MIME type strings could include:

1. **Using `match()` with a string literal**: Similar to the Regex approach, but without the overhead of compiling and executing a regex pattern.
2. **Using a custom implementation**: Writing a custom function to parse the MIME type string, which may be more efficient than using built-in JavaScript functions or regex.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The `Script Preparation Code` section sets an HTTP header for the benchmark content type, while the `Html Preparation Code` includes Lodash's script tag to enable the use of its `_.includes()` function in the tests.

Regex vs. String functions v2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `String functions vs Regex`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String functions

Regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Regex vs. String functions v2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: String functions vs Regex

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String functions

Regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `String functions vs Regex`