Benchmark: includes vs regex testcases

Script Preparation code:

var str = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

Tests:

includes
str.includes("sdfsdkfnskdf") || str.includes("voluptate") || str.includes("elit")
test
/sdfsdkfnskdf|voluptate|elit/.test(str)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

test

15.5M/s

includes

7.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ test	15,486,632 Ops/sec
includes	6,958,047 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

The main goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two different ways to check if a string includes a specific substring: using the `string.includes()` method and using regular expressions with the `/test()` method.

**`string.includes()` method:**

This method checks if a given value (in this case, a substring) exists in a specified string. It returns `true` if the value is found, and `false` otherwise.

Pros:

* Easy to read and understand
* Fast and efficient for simple cases

Cons:

* Can be slow for large strings or complex regular expressions
* Limited functionality compared to regular expressions

**Regular Expressions with `/test()` method:**

This method uses a regular expression pattern to match the specified substring in the string. The `test()` method returns `true` if the pattern matches, and `false` otherwise.

Pros:

* Powerful for complex patterns and matching
* Fast and efficient for large strings

Cons:

* Can be harder to read and understand due to its complexity
* May require more computational resources than `string.includes()`

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, the `String.prototype.includes()` method is being tested. This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if a string includes a specified substring.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There's no special feature or syntax being specifically highlighted in this benchmark. It's focused on comparing two common string manipulation methods.

Now, let's consider other alternatives for achieving similar results:

* Using `string.indexOf()` instead of `includes()`: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the substring, or `-1` if not found.
* Using a library like `regex-optimizer` to optimize regular expression performance: This could potentially improve the speed of the `/test()` method.
* Using a different string manipulation method, such as using `substring()` and `indexOf()`: This approach would involve splitting the string into substrings and then checking for each substring.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the benchmark's focus on `includes()` vs. regular expressions with `/test()`.

includes vs regex testcases (version: 0)

string.includes vs regex.test methods

Comparing performance of: `includes vs test`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

includes vs regex testcases (version: 0)

string.includes vs regex.test methods

Comparing performance of: includes vs test

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

test

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: `includes vs test`