Benchmark: RegEx.test vs Array.includes — fork 1

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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year 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

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	5884594.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes	6154063.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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 — fork 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs Array.includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

Array.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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