Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match pr
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.match
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var string = "12 CACAUSD"; var regex = /USD/;
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>
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:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.0 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=505050" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
String.includes
13.3M/s
String.match
10.5M/s
RegEx.test
9.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
String.includes
13,275,682 Ops/sec
String.match
10,522,551 Ops/sec
RegEx.test
9,378,333 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the provided benchmark. **What is tested?** The provided benchmark tests three approaches to search for the string "USD" in a given string: 1. `RegEx.test()`: This method uses regular expressions (regex) to search for the specified pattern in the input string. 2. `String.includes()`: This method checks if the input string includes the specified substring. 3. `String.match()`: This method searches for the first occurrence of the specified pattern in the input string. **Options compared** The benchmark compares the performance of each approach across different browsers (Safari 17) and devices (Desktop). **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **RegEx.test()** * Pros: + More flexible and powerful than `String.includes()` and `String.match()`. + Can perform complex searches with multiple patterns. * Cons: + May be slower due to the overhead of compiling regular expressions. 2. **String.includes()** * Pros: + Simple and lightweight, making it faster than regex-based approaches. + Suitable for simple substring matching tasks. * Cons: + Less flexible than regex-based approaches, as it only searches for exact matches. 3. **String.match()** * Pros: + Similar to `RegEx.test()` but with fewer features and less flexibility. + Can be faster than regex-based approaches due to its simpler implementation. * Cons: + Less powerful than `RegEx.test()` and may not support all regex features. **Library and purpose** None of the test cases use any external libraries. The tests are self-contained in terms of input strings, regex patterns, and JavaScript methods. **Special JS feature or syntax (none mentioned)** There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you were to add additional approaches to the benchmark, some alternatives could be: * Using a dedicated string search library like `StringSearch` or ` regex-optimizations` * Implementing a custom search algorithm using a data structure like a trie * Using Web Workers to parallelize the search tasks However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the test setup and implementation. Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of three common string search methods in JavaScript, highlighting their trade-offs in terms of flexibility, performance, and complexity.
Related benchmarks
RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match insensitive
Case insensitive RegEx.test vs. String.includes when string doesn’t match
RegEx.test vs. String.includes incasesensitive
Longer regex test vs string includes
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?