Benchmark: RegEx vs Array.includes v2

Script Preparation code:

var regex = /\d/;
var arr = ['0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'];

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test('1')
Array.includes
arr.includes('1');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Array.includes

36.2M/s

RegEx.test

18.8M/s

Fastest: Array.includes (1.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 36,209,028 ops/sec
• RegEx.test: 18,800,204 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Array.includes

159.1M/s

RegEx.test

78.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.includes	159,115,136 Ops/sec
RegEx.test	78,391,856 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: regular expression (RegExp) `test()` and array `includes(v2)` for searching a specific value ("1") within an array of digits. The goal is to determine which method is faster.

**Comparison Options**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Regular Expression (`test()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported by most JavaScript engines.
		+ Allows for more flexible pattern matching, not limited to simple value searches.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than native array methods due to the overhead of creating and executing a regular expression.
2. **Array `includes(v2)`**
	* Pros:
		+ Native to JavaScript, optimized for performance by the engine.
		+ Generally faster than RegExp for simple value searches.
	* Cons:
		+ Not available in older browsers or JavaScript engines that don't support modern array methods.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Library usage**: Neither of the options relies on a third-party library.
2. **Special JS feature or syntax**: The benchmark uses `v2` in `arr.includes()`, which refers to the second version of the `includes()` method, introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10). This is not a special feature or syntax, but rather a specific implementation detail.
3. **Device and browser variations**: The benchmark includes data from different devices (Desktop) and browsers (Chrome 122), which helps to account for potential differences in performance.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code sets up the necessary variables:

* `regex`: Creates a new RegExp object with a pattern that matches any digit (`\\d`).
* `arr`: Defines an array of digits (`'0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'`).

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a single benchmark definition, which is executed once:

* The first test case, `RegEx.test`, calls the RegExp `test()` method on the prepared regex object with the value `'1'`.
* The second test case, `Array.includes`, calls the array `includes()` method (specifically, version 2) on the prepared array with the same value `'1'`.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The provided result shows the execution statistics for each test case across different devices and browsers. The results indicate that `Array.includes(v2)` is slightly faster than `RegEx.test()`, but the difference is relatively small.

Keep in mind that these results may not be representative of your specific use cases or environments, as they are based on a single set of device and browser configurations.

RegEx vs Array.includes v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `RegEx.test vs Array.includes`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

RegEx.test

Array.includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

RegEx vs Array.includes v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs Array.includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

RegEx.test

Array.includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `RegEx.test vs Array.includes`