Benchmark: .includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() for userAgent identification

Script Preparation code:

var ua="Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 16_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.0 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1"

Tests:

text.includes()
ua.includes('iPad')
regex.test()
/iPad/.test(ua)
string.match()
ua.match(/iPad/)
string.indexOf()
ua.indexOf('iPad') >= 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically designed to compare the performance of different string matching methods for userAgent identification.

**Matching Methods Comparison**

There are four comparison methods:

1. `.includes()`: This method checks if a specified substring is present in the original string.
2. `.test()`: This method returns `true` if the specified regular expression pattern matches the entire string.
3. `.match()`: This method returns an array containing all non-overlapping matches of the specified regular expression pattern in the entire string, or `null` if no match is found.
4. `.indexOf()`: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified substring in the original string, or `-1` if not found.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `.includes()`:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward to implement, often faster due to its simplicity.
	+ Cons: May be slower for larger strings or more complex substrings.
* `.test()`: 
	+ Pros: Can match entire strings with regular expressions, useful for more complex patterns.
	+ Cons: Generally slower than other methods due to the overhead of compiling and executing the regex pattern.
* `.match()`:
	+ Pros: Returns all matches, which can be useful in certain scenarios. Can also handle multiple substrings.
	+ Cons: Often slower than `.includes()` for simple substring matching.
* `.indexOf()`: 
	+ Pros: Fastest method when only looking for a single exact match.
	+ Cons: May not be as suitable when searching for substrings or patterns.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

The provided benchmark test case does not explicitly mention any libraries. However, the methods being compared (`includes()`, `test()`, `match()`, and `indexOf()`) are all native JavaScript methods.

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require additional knowledge to understand.

**Alternatives**

For users interested in exploring alternative string matching methods or libraries, some options include:

* Regular expression libraries like ` RegExp` (native) or third-party libraries like `regex-js`
* String manipulation libraries like `lodash.string` or `String.prototype`
* Other benchmarking tools or frameworks specifically designed for performance comparison, such as Jest, Mocha, or BenchmarkJS.

It's essential to note that the choice of method or library depends on the specific use case and requirements. In this benchmark, the focus is on comparing native JavaScript methods, providing a straightforward example of string matching optimization.

Related benchmarks:

.includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() for userAgent identification (version: 0)

Compare different intra-string matching styles for userAgent identification

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

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

text.includes()

regex.test()

string.match()

string.indexOf()

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):