Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
RegEx.test (with inline regex) vs. String.includes vs. String.match
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.match
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var string = "Hello world!";
Tests:
RegEx.test
/Hello/.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("Hello");
String.match
string.match("Hello");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.match
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 131 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=578059" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
String.includes
163.7M/s
RegEx.test
45.1M/s
String.match
8.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
String.includes
163,684,736 Ops/sec
RegEx.test
45,086,504 Ops/sec
String.match
8,903,239 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares three different approaches to check if a specific string ("Hello") exists within another string: 1. **Regex.test**: Uses regular expressions (regex) with the `test()` method. 2. **String.includes**: Uses the `includes()` method. 3. **String.match**: Uses the `match()` method. **Options Compared** The three options being compared are: * Regex.test: This approach uses regex patterns to search for a match in the string. + Pros: - Can be more flexible and powerful than other approaches. - Often faster than other methods for complex searches. + Cons: - Can be slower than other methods for simple searches. - Requires additional setup (regex pattern) and error handling. * String.includes: This approach uses the `includes()` method, which checks if a substring exists within another string. + Pros: - Fast and efficient, especially for simple searches. - Easy to use and understand. + Cons: - May not be suitable for complex searches or regex patterns. - Can be slower than other methods for large strings. * String.match: This approach uses the `match()` method, which returns an array of matches if a pattern exists in the string. + Pros: - Can be used to extract multiple matches from a single search. - Often faster than other methods for simple searches. + Cons: - May return false positives or incorrect results if not used carefully. - Can be slower than other methods for complex searches. **Libraries and Special Features** * None of the options use external libraries. However, `String.includes` is a built-in method in JavaScript. * No special JS features or syntax are being tested. All three options are standard JavaScript methods. **Other Alternatives** Some alternative approaches to these methods include: * Using `indexOf()` or `lastIndexOf()` instead of `includes()`. * Using `regex.exec()` instead of `test()`. * Using `substring()` or other string manipulation methods to achieve similar results. * Using a library like UglifyJS or other minification tools to optimize the performance of these methods. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided script preparation code is simple: ```javascript var string = "Hello world!"; ``` This sets up a test string that will be used for all three benchmark cases.
Related benchmarks
RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match insensitive
RegEx.test vs. String.includes incasesensitive
Long regex test vs string includes
Longer regex test vs string includes
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?