Benchmark: .includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() vs .search()

Script Preparation code:

var url = 'https://www.google.com/matchthis/other/args'

Tests:

text.includes()
url.includes('matchthis')
text.test()
/matchthis/.test(url)
text.match()
url.match(/matchthis/)
text.indexOf()
url.indexOf('matchthis') >= 0
text.search()
url.search('matchthis') >= 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
text.includes()
text.test()
text.match()
text.indexOf()
text.search()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 78 on Mac OS X 10.11

View result in a separate tab

text.indexOf()

6.5M/s

text.includes()

6.0M/s

text.search()

4.4M/s

text.test()

3.3M/s

text.match()

1.6M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ text.indexOf()	6,512,858 Ops/sec
text.includes()	6,003,972 Ops/sec
text.search()	4,380,614 Ops/sec
text.test()	3,337,803 Ops/sec
text.match()	1,557,890 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 JSON data and explain what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing five different string search methods:

1. `includes()`
2. `test()`
3. `match()`
4. `indexOf()`
5. `search()`

These methods are used to find a specified substring within a given string.

**Test Cases**

Each test case has two parts: a "Benchmark Definition" and a "Test Name". The Benchmark Definition specifies the search condition, while the Test Name provides additional context for each test.

Here's a brief explanation of each test case:

1. `text.includes('matchthis')`: Tests if the string `'matchthis'` is present anywhere in the original URL.
2. `/matchthis/.test(url)`: Tests if the regular expression `/matchthis/` matches anywhere in the URL (note: this uses a forward slash to delimit the regex pattern).
3. `url.match(/matchthis/)`: Tests if the string `'matchthis'` is found as a whole word within the URL.
4. `text.indexOf('matchthis') >= 0`: Tests if the index of the first occurrence of `'matchthis'` in the original URL is greater than or equal to 0 (i.e., if it's present).
5. `url.search('matchthis') >= 0`: Tests if the search query string for the URL contains `'matchthis'`.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used beyond standard JavaScript functionality.

However, note that:

* In test case 2, `/matchthis/.test(url)` uses a forward slash to delimit the regular expression pattern. This is a non-standard way of escaping special characters in regex patterns.
* The `includes()` method is supported by modern browsers starting from around 2015 (Chrome 45, Firefox 40). However, older browsers like Internet Explorer may not support it.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief pros and cons analysis for each test case:

1. `text.includes('matchthis')`:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods due to the use of string iteration.
2. `/matchthis/.test(url)`:
	* Pros: Fast, concise way to check for substring presence using regex.
	* Cons: Less readable, requires knowledge of forward slash escaping for special characters.
3. `url.match(/matchthis/)`:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient way to find whole word occurrences.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods due to the use of regular expressions.
4. `text.indexOf('matchthis') >= 0`:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported.
	* Cons: Returns an index value (or -1 if not found), which may require additional processing.
5. `url.search('matchthis') >= 0`:
	* Pros: Fast, concise way to check for search query string presence.
	* Cons: Less readable, requires knowledge of the `search()` method's behavior.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives or variations on this benchmark, consider:

* Using a different language or implementation (e.g., Python, Java) to compare performance across languages.
* Adding more test cases to cover additional edge cases or scenarios (e.g., case-insensitive searches).
* Including other string processing methods, such as `startsWith()` or `endsWith()`, for comparison.

Keep in mind that the specific choices of test cases and methods will depend on your testing goals and requirements.

.includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() vs .search() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `text.includes() vs text.test() vs text.match() vs text.indexOf() vs text.search()`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

text.includes()

text.test()

text.match()

text.indexOf()

text.search()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

.includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() vs .search() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: text.includes() vs text.test() vs text.match() vs text.indexOf() vs text.search()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

text.includes()

text.test()

text.match()

text.indexOf()

text.search()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `text.includes() vs text.test() vs text.match() vs text.indexOf() vs text.search()`