Benchmark: String.includes() vs. String.matchAll v2

Script Preparation code:

var string = '{{ vars.test asflkglsfsdfm;l; s;lfkg;sldf g;sd f; sd;fl ;lsd fg;lsd f;gdsfg s df;gl sdl;fgkl;sdkf gl;s df;gl s;dlfg;sdfg }}';
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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, titled "String.includes() vs. String.matchAll v2". This benchmark compares the performance of two string searching methods in JavaScript:

1. `String.includes()`: A method that searches for a specified value (substring) within a string and returns a boolean indicating whether the value is found.
2. `String.matchAll(v2)`: A method introduced in ECMAScript 2022, which uses regular expressions to search for all occurrences of a pattern within a string. The method returns an iterator yielding match results.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two methods:

* `String.includes()`
* `String.matchAll(v2)`

**Pros and Cons**

**`String.includes()`**:

Pros:

* Wide browser support (since 1997)
* Simple and straightforward implementation
* Fast for small strings or simple searches

Cons:

* Has a fixed length search algorithm, which can be slow for large strings or complex patterns
* May not be optimized for performance in all browsers

**`String.matchAll(v2)`**:

Pros:

* Optimized for performance using regular expressions (regex)
* Can handle complex patterns and large strings efficiently
* Part of the ECMAScript 2022 standard, ensuring better browser support

Cons:

* Requires modern JavaScript engines that support `matchAll()`
* May have a higher overhead due to regex parsing and compilation

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses the `String.matchAll()` method, which is a part of the JavaScript language itself. No external libraries are required.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's standard in modern JavaScript.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to these two methods include:

* Using `String.prototype.indexOf()` instead of `String.includes()`
* Implementing custom string searching algorithms, such as Rabin-Karp or Knuth-Morris-Pratt
* Utilizing native modules like `text-search` or `regex-compiler` for optimized performance

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of browser support or simplicity as the standard methods used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

String.includes() vs. String.matchAll v2 (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):