Benchmark: String.includes vs Regex.test

Tests:

String.includes
const isCeoLevel = 'this is a long string huhu (CEO_STAR) asdas '; isCeoLevel.includes("CEO_STAR");
Regex.test
const isCeoLevel = 'this is a long string huhu (CEO_STAR) asdas '; /CEO_STAR/i.test(isCeoLevel);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.includes
Regex.test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.includes	1038713472.0 Ops/sec
Regex.test	51772720.0 Ops/sec

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 their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of two string searching methods: `String.includes` and `Regex.test`. The benchmark is designed to measure which method is faster for finding a specific substring within a larger string.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **String.includes**: This method uses the `includes()` function to search for a specified value (substring) in a given string.
2. **Regex.test**: This method uses regular expressions (regex) to search for a pattern in a string and returns a match object if found.

**Pros and Cons**

* **String.includes**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported across most JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `Regex.test` for certain use cases due to its implementation details.
* **Regex.test**:
	+ Pros: More flexible and powerful than `String.includes`, especially for complex pattern matching.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `String.includes` for simple substring searches, as it involves more computational overhead.

**Library/Functionality Used**

In the provided benchmark code, the `includes()` function is used in both test cases. It's a built-in JavaScript function that checks if a string contains a specified value (substring).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other Alternatives**

For more complex pattern matching and search requirements, alternative methods could be used, such as:

* Using the `RegExp` object with the `test()` method.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda for string manipulation and searching functions.
* Leveraging native browser APIs like `String.prototype.matchAll()` for more efficient string matching.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON does not contain any script preparation code. This suggests that the benchmark is likely designed to run directly in a web environment, where the necessary JavaScript functions are already available.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case compares one specific scenario:

* The first test case measures the performance of `String.includes` for finding the substring "CEO_STAR" within a longer string.
* The second test case measures the performance of `Regex.test` with the same input, but using regular expressions to find the same substring.

The benchmark result provided shows the execution counts per second for both test cases on a specific browser and device platform. This data can be used to determine which method performs better in this particular scenario.

Related benchmarks:

String.includes vs Regex.test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String.includes vs Regex.test

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.includes

Regex.test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):