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

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Hello world!";
var regex = /Hello/;

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/107.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	9104336.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	20328542.0 Ops/sec
String.match	5296882.0 Ops/sec
String.replace	6709198.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance of different JavaScript methods for string manipulation is crucial in modern web development, especially when it comes to optimizing code for various use cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests four common methods for comparing or replacing strings:

1. `String.includes()`
2. `String.match()`
3. `String.replace()`
4. `RegExp.test()`

Each method is executed multiple times with the same input, allowing for a fair comparison of their performance.

**Library and Features**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any JavaScript libraries beyond the built-in `String` and `RegExp` objects. However, it's essential to note that some browsers might have additional features or extensions enabled by default, which could affect the results.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Method Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each method, their pros and cons:

1. **String.includes()**
	* Purpose: Check if a string contains a specified substring.
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and easy to implement.
		+ Fast for simple checks (i.e., checking if a string exists within another).
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than other methods when dealing with large strings or complex patterns.
2. **String.match()**
	* Purpose: Search for the first occurrence of a specified pattern within a string.
	* Pros:
		+ More powerful than `includes()` for regular expression-based searching.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower and more resource-intensive due to the complexity of regular expressions.
3. **String.replace()**
	* Purpose: Replace occurrences of a specified substring within a string.
	* Pros:
		+ Effective for simple string replacement tasks.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than `includes()` or `match()` when dealing with large strings or complex patterns.
4. **RegExp.test()**
	* Purpose: Test if a string matches a specified regular expression pattern.
	* Pros:
		+ More powerful and flexible than `String.match()` for regular expression-based matching.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the complexity of regular expressions.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show that:

* `String.includes()` is generally faster than `RegExp.test()`, although it might not be as fast as `String.replace()` in some cases.
* `RegExp.test()` and `String.match()` can be slower than `String.replace()` due to the overhead of regular expressions.

**Other Alternatives**

Some additional methods that could be considered for benchmarking include:

1. **Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js**: These libraries provide various string manipulation functions, such as `_.includes()`, `_._indexOf()`, and `_._replace()`. Benchmarking these alternatives could provide insight into the performance of third-party libraries.
2. **Using other string manipulation methods**: Other methods, like using arrays or buffers for string manipulation, might also be worth considering in a benchmark.
3. **Testing with different types of strings**: Benchmarking with different types of strings (e.g., null, undefined, binary data) could help identify any issues specific to certain input types.

Keep in mind that the results of such benchmarks would depend on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

String.replace

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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