Benchmark: RegEx.matchAll vs includes with match

Script Preparation code:

var string = "{{ hello }}";
var regex = /Hello/;

Tests:

String.includesAll
string.includes("{{") && string.includes("}}")
String.matchAll
string.matchAll(new RegExp(`{{((?!}}).+?)}}`, 'g'))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.includesAll
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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and provide insights on the tested options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically comparing two approaches for searching a regular expression (RegExp) within a string: `string.includes()` with multiple calls versus `string.matchAll()`. The test case uses a predefined string template (`"{{ hello }}"`), which is inserted into the script preparation code.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **`string.includes()` with multiple calls**: This approach involves calling the `includes()` method twice to search for both opening (`"{{"`) and closing (`"}}"`) quotes in the string.
2. **`string.matchAll()`**: This approach uses the `matchAll()` method, which returns an iterator over all matches of the RegExp pattern within the string.

**Pros and Cons**

**`string.includes()` with multiple calls:**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation
* Fast execution time due to the single call to `includes()`

Cons:

* May cause performance issues if the RegExp is complex or if the string is very large, as it involves multiple iterations over the same string data.
* May not be optimized for modern JavaScript engines.

**`string.matchAll()`:**

Pros:

* More efficient and scalable than using `includes()` multiple times, especially for large strings or complex RegExps.
* Optimized for modern JavaScript engines to minimize overhead.

Cons:

* Requires an iterator over the matches, which might incur additional memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
* May have slightly higher execution time due to the additional overhead of creating the iterator.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also tests the performance difference between these two approaches using a different method (`string.includesAll()`), which is not directly related to the original comparison. This additional test likely serves as a sanity check to ensure that the `includesAll()` method behaves correctly and doesn't introduce any biases in the results.

**Library/Utility Used**

None of the tested methods rely on external libraries or utilities, so there are no additional dependencies to consider.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax (None)**

There is no use of special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark, such as async/await, Promises, or ES6+ features like `const` and `let`.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for searching RegExps within strings could include:

* Using `RegExp.test()` instead of `includes()`
* Using a library like `regex-string-matcher` which provides optimized performance
* Compiling the RegExp pattern beforehand using `RegExp.compile()`

Keep in mind that the optimal approach may depend on specific use cases, such as searching for complex patterns or dealing with very large strings.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.matchAll vs includes with match (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String.includesAll vs String.matchAll

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.includesAll

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):