Benchmark: String.match vs. RegEx.test vs trim

Script Preparation code:

var string = "   ";
var regex = /^\s*$/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.match
string.match(regex);
trim
string.trim()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.match
trim

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	50969224.0 Ops/sec
String.match	35644076.0 Ops/sec
trim	93691288.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its components.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically testing three different string manipulation methods: `String.match()`, `RegExp.test()`, and `trim()`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three options:

1. **`String.match()`**: This method attempts to match the input string against a regular expression pattern. In this case, the regex pattern is `/^\\s*$/`, which matches any whitespace character (`\\s*`) at the start and end of the string.
2. **`RegExp.test()`**: This method tests if the input string passes a regular expression test. The same regex pattern as above is used.
3. **`trim()`**: This method removes leading and trailing whitespace characters from the input string.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each option:

* **`String.match()`**: Pros:
	+ Simple to use
	+ Fast, since it doesn't require compilation or parsing the regex pattern
Cons:
	+ May not work correctly if the input string is not a valid string (e.g., null or undefined)
	+ May be slower than `RegExp.test()` for complex patterns
* **`RegExp.test()`**: Pros:
	+ More flexible and powerful than `String.match()`
	+ Can handle more complex regex patterns
Cons:
	+ Slower due to the need to compile and parse the regex pattern
	+ More difficult to use, especially for beginners
* **`trim()`**: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient
	+ Simple to use
Cons:
	+ Only removes leading and trailing whitespace characters (not useful for more complex trimming)
	+ May not be suitable for all use cases

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the benchmark, but it's worth noting that `RegExp` is a built-in JavaScript object that provides regular expression functionality.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. All operations are standard JavaScript functions and methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative string manipulation methods, here are a few options:

* **`substr()`**: This method extracts a subset of characters from the input string. While not directly comparable to `String.match()` and `RegExp.test()`, it can be used for similar purposes.
* **`replace()`**: This method replaces substrings in the input string with new values. Like `substr()`, it's not directly comparable, but can be used for specific use cases.
* **`split()`** and **`join()`**: These methods split and join strings into substrings or arrays of characters, respectively. While not directly related to string matching, they can be useful for more complex string manipulation tasks.

Overall, the benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison of three commonly used string manipulation methods in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

String.match vs. RegEx.test vs trim (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.match vs trim

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.match

trim

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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