Benchmark: j3473347347dssd43

Script Preparation code:

var string1 = "duck";
var string2 = "dark";

Tests:

RegEx.test
function leven_distance(firstWord, secondWord) { if (!firstWord.length) return secondWord.length; if (!secondWord.length) return firstWord.length; return Math.min( leven_distance(firstWord.substr(1), secondWord) + 1, leven_distance(secondWord.substr(1), firstWord) + 1, leven_distance(firstWord.substr(1), secondWord.substr(1)) + (firstWord[0] !== secondWord[0] ? 1 : 0) ); } leven_distance(string1, string2);
String.includes
const levenshteinDistance = (first, second) => { if (!first.length) return second.length; if (!second.length) return first.length; const distance = []; for (let i = 0; i <= second.length; i++) { distance[i] = [i]; for (let j = 1; j <= first.length; j++) { if (i === 0) { distance[i][j] = j; } else { distance[i][j] = Math.min( distance[i - 1]?.[j] + 1, distance[i][j - 1] + 1, distance[i - 1][j - 1] + (first[j - 1] === second[i - 1] ? 0 : 1) ); } } } return distance[second.length][first.length]; }; levenshteinDistance(string1, string2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.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.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a complex task, and the provided benchmark definition and test cases provide valuable insights into what's being tested.

**What is tested:**

The provided benchmark definition represents two individual test cases:

1. **RegEx.test**: This test case measures the performance of regular expressions in JavaScript. Specifically, it tests the `String.includes()` method with a regular expression.
2. **String.includes**: This test case measures the performance of the built-in `String.includes()` method.

**Options compared:**

The two test cases compare the performance of using regular expressions versus native string methods for substring matching.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Regular Expressions (RegEx.test):**
	* Pros:
		+ Can match complex patterns, including regular expressions with variables and anchors.
		+ Often more flexible than native string methods.
	* Cons:
		+ Generally slower than native string methods due to the overhead of compiling and executing regular expressions.
		+ May require more memory to store compiled patterns.
2. **Native String Methods (String.includes):**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster and more efficient than regular expressions.
		+ Often less memory-intensive.
	* Cons:
		+ May be limited in their functionality compared to regular expressions.

**Library usage:**

Neither test case explicitly uses a library, but it's worth noting that the `String.includes()` method is often implemented using a Boyer-Moore or Knuth-Morris-Pratt algorithm, which are optimization techniques for substring matching. These algorithms are typically used in native string methods and may not be directly comparable to regular expression performance.

**Special JavaScript features:**

The provided benchmark definition does not explicitly test any special JavaScript features, such as async/await, Promises, or Web Workers. However, it's worth noting that the benchmarking tool may have some limitations or optimizations that affect the results of these tests.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative methods for substring matching, here are a few options:

1. **Boyer-Moore Algorithm:** This is an optimization technique for substring matching that can be implemented using native string methods.
2. **Knuth-Morris-Pratt Algorithm:** Similar to the Boyer-Moore algorithm, this technique is often used in native string methods for substring matching.
3. **Rabin-Karp Algorithm:** Another optimization technique for substring matching, which uses hashing to reduce the number of comparisons needed.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly comparable to regular expressions or native string methods, as they have different trade-offs in terms of performance and functionality.

Related benchmarks:

j3473347347dssd43 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.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):