Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test vs match vs startsWith vs [0]
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
test vs match vs startsWith vs array 0
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
test
/@.*/.test("@MyVariable")
match
"@MyVariable".match(/@.*/)
startsWith
"@MyVariable".startsWith("@")
array 0
"@MyVariable"[0] === "@"
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
test
match
startsWith
array 0
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 119 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=536122" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
test
53889464.0 Ops/sec
match
36346420.0 Ops/sec
startsWith
2052739840.0 Ops/sec
array 0
1271626368.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of four different string matching approaches: `test`, `match`, `startsWith`, and array indexing (`[0]`). **Approaches compared:** 1. **test**: This approach uses a regular expression that matches any character at the beginning of the string. 2. **match**: This approach uses the `String.prototype.match()` method, which returns an array containing a match if one is found, or null otherwise. The regex `/@.*/` is used to match any character (`.`) at the beginning of the string (`@`). 3. **startsWith**: This approach uses the `String.prototype.startsWith()` method, which returns true if the string starts with the specified value (`"@"`). 4. **array 0**: This approach uses array indexing (`[0]`) to access the first character of the string and compare it with `"@"`. **Pros and cons:** * **test**: Pros - simple and efficient for specific use cases; Cons - may not be suitable for all types of strings (e.g., null or undefined). * **match**: Pros - flexible and can match any pattern; Cons - slower than `startsWith` due to the overhead of the regex engine. * **startsWith**: Pros - faster and more efficient than `test` and `match`; Cons - may not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., matching at the end of a string). * **array 0**: Pros - simple and efficient for accessing the first character; Cons - may not be suitable for all types of strings (e.g., empty strings). **Libraries and features:** None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that `String.prototype.match()` uses a regular expression engine under the hood. If you're using a modern JavaScript engine like V8 or SpiderMonkey, this engine is highly optimized for performance. **Other considerations:** * The benchmark results show that `startsWith` performs significantly better than the other approaches, which is consistent with its general behavior. * The `test` approach may be suitable for specific use cases where a simple match is required, but it's not recommended due to its limited flexibility and potential performance issues. * The `match` approach provides more flexibility than `test`, but at the cost of slower performance. **Alternatives:** * For even faster string matching, you can consider using a dedicated library like `string-search` or `regex-performance`. * If you need to perform complex text processing tasks, consider using a dedicated library like `text-processing` or `regex-utility`. Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.
Related benchmarks:
endsWith() vs regex
endsWith vs Regex - case insensitive
startsWith vs charCodeAt
startsWith vs regex hash
includes with regex vs startWith
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?