Benchmark: Regex /i vs .includes with tolowerCase

HTML Preparation code:

<div></div>

Script Preparation code:

window.regex = /test/i;
window.match = 'test';
var data = window.data = [];
const possible = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789";
var TOTAL_STRINGS = window.TOTAL_STRINGS = 100000;

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * max);
}

function makeRandomString(len) {
  var text = "";
  for( var i=0; i < len; i++ ) {
    text += possible.charAt(getRandomInt(possible.length));
  }
  return text;
}

while (data.length < TOTAL_STRINGS) {
  data.push(makeRandomString(getRandomInt(20)));
}

Tests:

Regex
var x = 0; var TOTAL_STRINGS = window.TOTAL_STRINGS; var data = window.data; var regex = window.regex; while (x < TOTAL_STRINGS) { const str = data[x]; regex.test(str); x += 1; }
.includes
var x = 0; var TOTAL_STRINGS = window.TOTAL_STRINGS; var data = window.data; var match = window.match; while (x < TOTAL_STRINGS) { const str = data[x]; window.match.toLowerCase().includes(str.toLowerCase()) x += 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Regex
.includes

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 what is being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Purpose:**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different string comparison methods:

1.  **Regular Expressions (Regex)**: Specifically, the `/i` flag is used to make the regex match case-insensitive.
2.  **String Inclusion with `toLowerCase()`**: This method converts both strings to lowercase before comparing them.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark tests these two options against each other:

*   Regex (`window.regex`)
*   `.includes` with `toLowerCase()`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

### Regular Expressions (Regex)

Pros:

*   **Flexibility**: Regex can match complex patterns, including regular expressions.
*   **Powerful**: Regex provides a wide range of features for string manipulation.

Cons:

*   **Performance Overhead**: Regex is generally slower than simple string comparison methods like `.includes`.
*   **Complexity**: Regex can be difficult to read and maintain due to its complexity.

### String Inclusion with `toLowerCase()`

Pros:

*   **Speed**: `.includes` with `toLowerCase()` is typically faster than regex because it uses a simpler algorithm.
*   **Ease of Use**: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand.

Cons:

*   **Limited Flexibility**: This method only compares strings based on their existence within a sequence, without additional features like pattern matching.

**Library Used:**

In this benchmark, the `window.regex` object represents a regex pattern. The `/i` flag makes it case-insensitive.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None are mentioned in the provided code or JSON.

Now, let's talk about alternatives:

1.  **String Matching Methods:** Other string comparison methods like `indexOf()`, `includes()`, and `localeCompare()` can be used for this type of benchmark.
2.  **Regex Alternatives:** Other regex options like `test()` without the `/i` flag or using a different pattern altogether could be tested to see which performs better.

In summary, the benchmark tests the performance of two string comparison methods: Regex and `.includes` with `toLowerCase()`. The Regex approach provides flexibility but incurs performance overhead due to its complexity. In contrast, `.includes` with `toLowerCase()` is faster but less flexible.

Related benchmarks:

Regex /i vs .includes with tolowerCase (version: 0)

Testing some things

Comparing performance of: Regex vs .includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Regex

.includes

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):