Benchmark: String.includes() vs. String.matchAll

Script Preparation code:

var string = '{{ vars.test }}';
var startDelim = '{{';
var endDelim = '}}';
var matcher = new RegExp(`${startDelim}((?!${endDelim}).+?)${endDelim}`, 'g');

Tests:

String.includes()
string.includes(startDelim) && string.includes(endDelim);
String.matchAll()
string.matchAll(matcher);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.includes()
String.matchAll()

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 explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Goal**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `string.includes()` and `string.matchAll()`. The test aims to determine which method is faster for searching a specific pattern within a string.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script preparation code defines some variables:

* `string`: a variable that will hold the input string, initialized with a placeholder value (`{{ vars.test }}`).
* `startDelim` and `endDelim`: variables that define the start and end delimiters of the pattern to search for. In this case, `startDelim` is set to `'{{'` and `endDelim` is set to `"}}"`.

The script also defines a regular expression (`matcher`) that captures the pattern `startDelim + (?!endDelim) .+? endDelim`, which matches any character that is not followed by `endDelim`. The `(?!...)` part is a negative lookahead assertion, which checks if the current position in the string does not match the pattern before `endDelim`.

**Comparison Options**
The two comparison options being tested are:

1. `string.includes(startDelim) && string.includes(endDelim);`: This method uses the `includes()` method to search for both `startDelim` and `endDelim` within the input string.
2. `string.matchAll(matcher);`: This method uses the `matchAll()` method with a regular expression to find all occurrences of the defined pattern in the input string.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`string.includes(startDelim) && string.includes(endDelim);`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation; easy to understand.
	+ Cons: May be slow for large strings or complex patterns due to repeated calls to `includes()`.
* **`string.matchAll(matcher);`**:
	+ Pros: More efficient than using multiple `includes()` calls, as it scans the entire string at once.
	+ Cons: Requires creating a regular expression object, which can be slower for very large strings or complex patterns.

**Library and Syntax**
The `String.prototype.includes()` method is used in the first test case. This method searches for the specified value within a string and returns `true` if it exists, or `false` otherwise.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**
Other approaches to comparing these two methods might include:

1. Using `string.indexOf(startDelim)` and `string.indexOf(endDelim)` instead of `includes()`. This would eliminate the repeated calls to `includes()` but might not be as efficient as using `matchAll()`.
2. Using a different regular expression or pattern, such as capturing groups or alternation.
3. Implementing a custom search function that iterates over the string and checks for the pattern in each iteration.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might affect the performance characteristics of the benchmark, so it's essential to test them thoroughly to determine their relative merits.

Related benchmarks:

String.includes() vs. String.matchAll (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String.includes() vs String.matchAll()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.includes()

String.matchAll()

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):