Benchmark: Regexp vs includes method

Script Preparation code:

var searchText = "New";
var testText1 = "NEW ABABABABABAABABAB";
var testText2 = "new ABABABABABAABABAB";

Tests:

With lower case
var lowerCaseSearchText = searchText.toLowerCase(); var lowerCaseTestText1 = testText1.toLowerCase(); var lowerCaseTestText2 = testText2.toLowerCase(); console.log(lowerCaseTestText1.includes(lowerCaseSearchText) || lowerCaseTestText2.includes(lowerCaseSearchText));
With regex
var regText = new RegExp(searchText, 'i'); var test1NameMatch = testText1.match(regText); var test2NameMatch = testText2.match(regText); console.log(test1NameMatch.length > 0 || test2NameMatch.length > 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With lower case
With regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to search for a specific string within a text: the `includes` method and regular expressions (regex).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up variables:

* `searchText`: The target string to be searched.
* `testText1` and `testText2`: Two example texts containing the target string in different cases (uppercase, lowercase, and a mix of both).
* `lowerCaseSearchText`, `lowerCaseTestText1`, and `lowerCaseTestText2`: These variables are created by converting `searchText` and `testText1` to lowercase using the `toLowerCase()` method.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark does not test any specific HTML-related scenarios.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

### 1. "With lower case"

This test case searches for the target string in both `testText1` and `testText2` using the `includes()` method, which converts the search text to lowercase before performing the search.

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement.
* Fast and efficient for simple cases.

Cons:

* May not work correctly if the input strings contain non-ASCII characters or special characters.
* Can be slower than regex-based approaches for complex cases.

### 2. "With regex"

This test case searches for the target string in both `testText1` and `testText2` using a regular expression (regex). The regex is created with the `i` flag, which makes it case-insensitive.

Pros:

* Can handle non-ASCII characters and special characters.
* More flexible than the `includes()` method for complex cases.

Cons:

* Requires more expertise to create and maintain.
* Can be slower than the `includes()` method due to the overhead of regex parsing.

**Library: RegExp**

The `RegExp` object is a built-in JavaScript library that provides support for regular expressions. The `new RegExp(searchText, 'i')` expression creates a new regex object with the specified search text and case-insensitive flag.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to searching for strings within texts include:

* Using a string indexing library (e.g., `String.prototype.indexOf()` or `Array.prototype.indexOf()`)
* Implementing a custom search algorithm using bit manipulation or other techniques
* Using a natural language processing (NLP) library to perform more complex text analysis tasks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or effective as the `includes()` method or regex-based approaches for simple cases.

Related benchmarks:

Regexp vs includes method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: With lower case vs With regex

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

With lower case

With regex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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