Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match 200

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /(unsuitable|join|faint|stage|honey|selection|two|fantastic|grain|sudden|coo|hand|grateful|impinge|breath|hurt|rest|stick|safe|lewd|accessible|erratic|actually|half|tested|illumine|earn|milk|snotty|forgetful|humdrum|conquer|merge|saddle|corrupt|disillusioned|sneaky|wrathful|upset|afford|amazing|scan|watery|stormy|statement|rightful|stress|coat|scattered|classify|friend|volcano|laugh|fork|salve|contend|illuminate|bust|wild|defeated|friendly|symptomatic|historical|pleasant|greasy|brass|fling|rhetorical|sloppy|charge|flawless|outgoing|giddy|giraffe|somber|swot|aboard|fascinated|lunchroom|cherry|destruction|haircut|side|begin|cute|tin|reply|skirt|spotted|obsequious|direction|scold|scat|cemetery|foot|guess|endorse|goat|strew|tin|frog|confiscate|cave|actor|shiver|trains|uproot|spotless|system|spark|audit|home|upbeat|relation|friends|inculcate|nail|cheerful|boundless|identify|enchanting|reading|classy|caption|sash|wiggly|potato|prescribe|succinct|outrageous|beast|persuade|moldy|successful|regret|pets|daily|wonderful|fast|skillful|study|endure|hill|map|shrill|blue-eyed|endurable|cuddly|boat|K|kite|productive|white|birds|animal|transport|kid|marble|frail|giddy|truculent|opinion|decrease|cream|half|meaty|rat|mitten|unbecoming|halting|fork|scissors|smart|spin|zebra|glib|old|dedicate|voice|useful|gifted|treatment|dip|future|multiply|lead|common|bleed|like|wound|scald|grade|direful|pale|guide|evanescent|spotty|dusty|fallacious|inexpensive)/;

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
string.includes("Hello");
String.match
string.match("Hello");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.match

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines three test cases:

1. `RegEx.test`: Tests the performance of the `RegExp.test()` method.
2. `String.includes`: Tests the performance of the `includes()` method on strings.
3. `String.match`: Tests the performance of the `match()` method on strings.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different methods:

* `RegExp.test()`
* `string.includes()`
* `string.match()`

These methods are used to search for a specific pattern or substring within a string. The main difference between them lies in their implementation and usage:

* `RegExp.test()` is a method that tests if a string matches a regular expression pattern. It returns a boolean value indicating whether the string matches the pattern.
* `string.includes()` is a method that checks if a string contains a specific substring. It returns a boolean value indicating whether the substring is found in the string.
* `string.match()` is a method that searches for the first occurrence of a regular expression pattern within a string and returns an array containing the match or null if no match is found.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. `RegExp.test()`
	* Pros:
		+ Flexible: Can test for multiple patterns using the same method.
		+ Fast: Generally faster than `string.includes()` and `string.match()` when dealing with complex patterns.
	* Cons:
		+ Steeper learning curve due to regular expression syntax.
		+ May be overkill for simple substring searches.
2. `string.includes()`
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to use: Simple, intuitive syntax.
		+ Fast: Generally faster than `RegExp.test()` and `string.match()` when dealing with short substrings.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited functionality: Only checks if a specific substring is present in the string.
3. `string.match()`
	* Pros:
		+ Convenient: Returns an array of matches or null, making it easy to work with multiple matches.
		+ Fast: Generally faster than `RegExp.test()` when dealing with simple patterns.
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible: Only returns the first match (or null), limiting its use for complex searches.

**Library**

The benchmark uses no external libraries. However, it does rely on the built-in JavaScript methods mentioned above (`RegExp.test()`, `string.includes()`, and `string.match()`).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the benchmarked methods specifically utilize special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly known.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to perform string searches, consider:

1. `String.prototype.indexOf()`: Similar to `includes()`, but returns the index of the first occurrence instead of a boolean value.
2. `String.prototype.lastIndexOf()`: Returns the index of the last occurrence of a substring in a string.
3. `Array.prototype.indexOf()`: Can be used to search for an element within an array, similar to `string.includes()`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to the benchmarked methods.

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match 200 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.match

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

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):