Benchmark: 76 _ Array.includes vs String.match

Tests:

Array.includes
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; 'Das ist foo bar ein Test'.includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'bar'; 'Das ist foo bar ein Test'.includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; 'Das ist foo bar ein Test'.includes(testStrNotMatch);
String.match
const testStrFirst = 'Das ist foo bar ein Test'; testStrFirst.match(/^(foo|bar)$/); const testStrSecond = 'Das ist foo bar ein Test'; testStrSecond.match(/^(foo|bar)$/); const testStrNotMatch = 'Das ist foo bar ein Test'; testStrNotMatch.match(/^(foo|bar)$/);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
String.match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	1013961408.0 Ops/sec
String.match	20957260.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks: `Array.includes` and `String.match`. Both benchmarks aim to measure the performance of these string methods in different scenarios.

**Options Compared**

The benchmarks compare the execution speed of:

1. **`Array.includes`**: a method used to test if an element is present in an array.
2. **`String.match`**: a method used to search for a pattern within a string and return an array containing the match (if found).

**Pros and Cons**

*   `Array.includes`:
    *   Pros: generally faster than `String.match`, as it can stop searching as soon as it finds a match.
    *   Cons: may require more overhead to check if the element is present in the array, which can affect performance.
*   `String.match`:
    *   Pros: can be useful when you need to capture the entire match (e.g., using regular expressions), rather than just checking for presence.
    *   Cons: slower than `Array.includes`, as it needs to perform a full search of the string.

**Library and Purpose**

*   **`/^(foo|bar)$/`**: This is a regular expression used in both benchmarks. The `/^` symbol indicates the start of the string, while `(foo|bar)` matches either "foo" or "bar". The `$` symbol at the end ensures that we're matching from the start to the end of the string.

**Special JavaScript Feature**

The `Array.includes()` and `String.match()` methods are part of the JavaScript Standard Library and are built-in methods, which means they don't require any external libraries to be used. They provide a convenient way to perform common string operations without having to write custom code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need more control over your string matching or want to use a different approach, consider the following alternatives:

*   **`String.indexOf()`**: This method searches for the specified value in a string and returns its position (or -1 if not found).
*   **`Array.prototype.some()`**: A method that tests whether at least one element of an array passes a test provided as a function.
*   **Regular expressions**: You can use regular expressions to match patterns within strings using `RegExp.test()` or `String.match()`.
*   **NativeArray methods**: If you're working with native arrays (not JavaScript arrays), you may have access to optimized methods like `indexOf()` or `includes()`.

In summary, the choice between `Array.includes()` and `String.match()` depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

76 _ Array.includes vs String.match (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs String.match

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

String.match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):