Benchmark: test vs match vs startsWith vs [0] vs includes

Tests:

test
/@.*/.test("@MyVariable")
match
"@MyVariable".match(/@.*/)
startsWith
"@MyVariable".startsWith("@")
array 0
"@MyVariable"[0] === "@"
includes
"@MyVariable".includes("@")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test
match
startsWith
array 0
includes

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

Test name	Executions per second
test	54396548.0 Ops/sec
match	36455508.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	2006605952.0 Ops/sec
array 0	2070965888.0 Ops/sec
includes	2080307968.0 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 and explore what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, named "test vs match vs startsWith vs [0] vs includes", compares the performance of five different string comparison methods:

1. `test`
2. `match`
3. `startsWith`
4. Indexing (`[0]`)
5. `includes`

These methods are used to compare a given string (`@MyVariable`) with another string.

**Method Comparisons**

Here's a brief explanation of each method, their pros and cons, and other considerations:

1. **`test`**: The `test` function is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if the first argument matches the regular expression provided as the second argument. It returns true if the strings match, false otherwise.

Pros: Simple and easy to use.
Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods for large strings or complex regex patterns.

2. **`match`**: The `match` function returns an array containing all matches of the regular expression in the string, or null if no match is found. In this case, we're using it with a simple regex pattern to match against the first character of the string.

Pros: Can be efficient for small strings or specific use cases.
Cons: Returns an array, which might not be desirable for all scenarios.

3. **`startsWith`**: The `startsWith` function checks if the string starts with the specified value.

Pros: Fast and simple to use.
Cons: Only compares the first character of the string; may not be suitable for longer strings.

4. **Indexing (`[0]`)**: Indexing a string in JavaScript returns the first character (or index) of the string.

Pros: Very fast and efficient.
Cons: Returns a single character, which might not be desirable for all scenarios.

5. **`includes`**: The `includes` function checks if the string contains the specified value.

Pros: Fast and simple to use.
Cons: May not be as efficient as indexing for very large strings or specific use cases.

**Library Usage**

None of the methods in this benchmark use a library specifically, but some might rely on internal JavaScript libraries or built-in functions. For example:

* `match` uses the regular expression engine, which is an internal JavaScript library.
* `startsWith` and `includes` are built-in string methods that don't require any external libraries.

**Special JS Features**

None of the methods in this benchmark use special JavaScript features like async/await, let/catch blocks, or ES6 classes. They're all synchronous functions that operate on plain strings.

**Other Alternatives**

For microbenchmarking purposes, MeasureThat.net provides an alternative approach using a custom implementation of each method. This allows for more fine-grained control over the benchmark and can help identify performance issues specific to certain JavaScript implementations.

Related benchmarks:

test vs match vs startsWith vs [0] vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test vs match vs startsWith vs array 0 vs includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test

match

startsWith

array 0

includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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