Benchmark: includes vs regex

Tests:

includes
const str = "ta35"; str.includes("t5")
startsWith
const str = "ta35"; new RegExp("t5".split('').join('.*'), 'i').test(str)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

includes

178.5M/s

startsWith

5.3M/s

Fastest: includes (33.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ includes: 178,522,944 ops/sec
• startsWith: 5,324,029 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
startsWith

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 144 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

includes

83.4M/s

startsWith

2.6M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ includes	83,383,232 Ops/sec
startsWith	2,560,368 Ops/sec

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 this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**: The provided JSON defines a simple benchmark that compares the performance of two different approaches: `includes()` and regular expressions (`RegExp`) to check if a string contains a certain substring.

**Options Compared**:

1. **`includes()` method**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if a string contains a specified value. It's implemented in native code, which means it's optimized for performance.
2. **Regular Expression (`RegExp`) approach**: This involves creating a regular expression object and then using the `test()` method to check if the input string matches the pattern.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **`includes()` method**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Only works with strings; may not be suitable for more complex patterns or character classes.
2. **Regular Expression (`RegExp`) approach**:
	* Pros: More flexible and powerful than `includes()`, can handle regular expressions, but slower due to the overhead of creating a RegExp object.
	* Cons: Slower than `includes()` in most cases; may be overkill for simple string matching.

**Library Used**: There is no specific library mentioned in this benchmark. The `includes()` method and `RegExp` approach are built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**: The benchmark uses the `includes()` method, which is a relatively recent addition to the JavaScript language (introduced in ES6). It's also worth noting that this benchmark does not use any specialized syntax or features like async/await, Promises, or Web APIs.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **`indexOf()` method**: This is another built-in JavaScript method for finding a substring within a string. While it may be faster than `includes()` in some cases, it's generally slower and less flexible.
2. **Third-party libraries**: There are several third-party libraries available that provide optimized regular expression matching or more advanced text manipulation features, such as UglifyJS, String.prototype.trim() or String.prototype.replace()

Keep in mind that the best approach for a specific use case may depend on factors like performance requirements, code readability, and the desired level of flexibility.

includes vs regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `includes vs startsWith`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

startsWith

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

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 regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

startsWith

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

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: `includes vs startsWith`