Benchmark: Comparing performance of: String.search vs String.match

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /^Hello world!$/;

Tests:

String.match
string.match(regex)?.length === 1;
String.search
string.search(regex) === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.match
String.search

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 12 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/147.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.match	19278950.0 Ops/sec
String.search	19378234.0 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `String.search()` and `String.match()`. The script preparation code provides a string variable `string` with a sample value "Hello world!" and a regular expression variable `regex` that matches the start of the string. The benchmark uses this setup to test how fast each method can search for a pattern within the string.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **String.search()**: This method returns the index of the first match or -1 if no match is found.
2. **String.match()**: This method returns an array with the matched value(s) as strings, or null if no match is found.

**Pros and Cons**

- **String.search():**
	+ Pros: Can return a specific index if a match is found, which can be useful in certain scenarios.
	+ Cons: Returns -1 if no match is found, which may lead to unnecessary comparisons or actions.
- **String.match():**
	+ Pros: Returns an array with the matched value(s), making it easier to process multiple matches. Also, returns null if no match is found, avoiding the need for additional checks.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `String.search()` since it needs to return an entire array of results.

**Library and Special JS Features**

- **Regular Expressions (Regex):** The benchmark uses a regex to search for the pattern. Regex is a powerful tool in JavaScript for working with strings, but it can also be complex and performance-intensive.
 
**Other Considerations**

- **Performance:** This benchmark primarily focuses on the performance difference between `String.search()` and `String.match()`. However, other factors like memory usage or code readability might influence the choice of method depending on the specific use case.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these methods:

- For searching a string, you could consider using `indexOf()` or `includes()` (for modern browsers) instead. These methods are generally faster and more efficient but may not offer all the features of `String.search()`.
- For matching patterns in strings, you might want to explore other libraries like `RegExp` (the native JavaScript regex object), which offers more powerful features than built-in string methods.
- In some cases, using a library or framework like Lodash or Ramda can provide additional functionality and optimizations for string manipulation tasks.

In summary, this benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two widely used JavaScript methods: `String.search()` and `String.match()`. By understanding their differences in terms of output format, potential performance impact, and usage scenarios, developers can make informed decisions about which method best suits their needs.

Related benchmarks:

Comparing performance of: String.search vs String.match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String.match vs String.search

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.match

String.search

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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