Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
RegEx.test vs Array.includes — fork 1
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
RegEx.test vs Array.includes
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var appState = "1"; var regex = /^[0-3]$/; var arr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];
Tests:
RegEx.test
regex.test(appState);
Array.includes
arr.includes(appState);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
RegEx.test
Array.includes
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/16.6 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=531716" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Array.includes
6.2M/s
RegEx.test
5.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Array.includes
6,154,064 Ops/sec
RegEx.test
5,884,594 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each comparing two different approaches: `Regex.test` and `Array.includes`. **Options compared:** 1. **Regex.test**: This method uses a regular expression to test if the input string (`appState`) matches a certain pattern. 2. **Array.includes**: This method checks if a specific element is present in an array. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** * **Regex.test**: + Pros: - Can be more efficient for exact matching patterns. - Can be faster for smaller input sizes. + Cons: - May be slower for larger input sizes due to the complexity of regular expressions. - May not perform well on very large datasets. * **Array.includes**: + Pros: - Often faster and more efficient, especially for larger input sizes. - Can handle a wide range of data types. + Cons: - May be slower for exact matching patterns due to the need to search the entire array. **Library used in the test case:** None, as these two methods are built-in JavaScript functions. However, if we were to extend this comparison to other libraries or frameworks, some examples include: * `lodash` (which includes its own implementation of `includes`) * `moment.js` (which has a different approach to date/time matching) **Special JS feature or syntax:** None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code. However, if we were to consider more advanced JavaScript features, we might look at: * **Async/await**: A way to write asynchronous code that's easier to read and maintain. * **Promises**: A way to handle asynchronous operations in a more structured way. * **Arrow functions**: A concise way to define small, single-purpose functions. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance, consider: * **Benchmarking libraries like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark** * **Online platforms like jsperf (now known as WebPageTest)** * **JavaScript engines like V8 (in Node.js) or SpiderMonkey (in Firefox)** I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks
RegEx.test vs Array.includes
RegEx.test vs Array.includes -- 3 options
RegEx vs Array.includes v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?