Benchmark: Includes vs Match

Script Preparation code:

var searchCases = ['e', 's', 'us', 'usdt', 'binance'];

var assetStrings = ['usdt', 'tether', 'ethereum', 'binance', 'busd', 'solana', 'sol']

Tests:

Match
searchCases.forEach(query => { assetStrings.forEach(assetString => !!assetString.match(query)) })
Includes
searchCases.forEach(query => { assetStrings.forEach(assetString => assetString.includes(query)) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Match
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 the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks: "Includes" and "Match". These benchmarks compare the performance of two different string matching approaches:

1. **Includes**: This approach uses the `includes()` method to check if a search query (`query`) is present within each asset string (`assetString`).
2. **Match**: This approach uses the `match()` method with a regular expression (regex) to match the search query against each asset string.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

* The `includes()` method
* The `match()` method with regex

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Includes**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ Fast execution due to optimized engine implementation (e.g., in V8).
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for complex search queries or edge cases.
		+ May not support Unicode properties or character classes (due to its simple string matching nature).
2. **Match**
	* Pros:
		+ Supports more advanced search features, such as regex patterns and Unicode properties.
		+ Can handle complex search queries and edge cases better.
	* Cons:
		+ More computationally expensive due to the overhead of compiling and executing regex patterns.
		+ May be slower for simple string matching.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library usage in the provided benchmark, but it's worth noting that both `includes()` and `match()` methods use internal JavaScript engine optimizations (e.g., V8) under the hood. However, if external libraries were used to implement these methods, they would add additional overhead.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `includes()` and `match()` both use modern JavaScript features, such as arrow functions (`query => { ... }`), which were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to write an alternative implementation for this benchmark, you could consider using:

* Regular expressions with the `test()` method and string concatenation or `exec()` methods.
* The `indexOf()` method instead of `includes()`.
* A custom implementation using a loop-based approach (e.g., iterating through characters in the strings).

However, keep in mind that these alternatives would likely be less efficient than the built-in `includes()` and `match()` methods.

Related benchmarks:

Includes vs Match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Match vs Includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Match

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):