Fastest way to check if a string matches a regexp in ruby?

Starting with Ruby 2.4.0, you may use RegExp#match?:

pattern.match?(string)

Regexp#match? is explicitly listed as a performance enhancement in the release notes for 2.4.0, as it avoids object allocations performed by other methods such as Regexp#match and =~:

Regexp#match?
Added Regexp#match?, which executes a regexp match without creating a back reference object and changing $~ to reduce object allocation.

This is a simple benchmark:

require 'benchmark'

"test123" =~ /1/
=> 4
Benchmark.measure{ 1000000.times { "test123" =~ /1/ } }
=>   0.610000   0.000000   0.610000 (  0.578133)

"test123"[/1/]
=> "1"
Benchmark.measure{ 1000000.times { "test123"[/1/] } }
=>   0.718000   0.000000   0.718000 (  0.750010)

irb(main):019:0> "test123".match(/1/)
=> #<MatchData "1">
Benchmark.measure{ 1000000.times { "test123".match(/1/) } }
=>   1.703000   0.000000   1.703000 (  1.578146)

So =~ is faster but it depends what you want to have as a returned value. If you just want to check if the text contains a regex or not use =~

This is the benchmark I have run after finding some articles around the net.

With 2.4.0 the winner is re.match?(str) (as suggested by @wiktor-stribiżew), on previous versions, re =~ str seems to be fastest, although str =~ re is almost as fast.

#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'benchmark'

str = "aacaabc"
re = Regexp.new('a+b').freeze

N = 4_000_000

Benchmark.bm do |b|
    b.report("str.match re\t") { N.times { str.match re } }
    b.report("str =~ re\t")    { N.times { str =~ re } }
    b.report("str[re]  \t")    { N.times { str[re] } }
    b.report("re =~ str\t")    { N.times { re =~ str } }
    b.report("re.match str\t") { N.times { re.match str } }
    if re.respond_to?(:match?)
        b.report("re.match? str\t") { N.times { re.match? str } }
    end
end

Results MRI 1.9.3-o551:

$ ./bench-re.rb  | sort -t $'\t' -k 2
       user     system      total        real
re =~ str         2.390000   0.000000   2.390000 (  2.397331)
str =~ re         2.450000   0.000000   2.450000 (  2.446893)
str[re]           2.940000   0.010000   2.950000 (  2.941666)
re.match str      3.620000   0.000000   3.620000 (  3.619922)
str.match re      4.180000   0.000000   4.180000 (  4.180083)

Results MRI 2.1.5:

$ ./bench-re.rb  | sort -t $'\t' -k 2
       user     system      total        real
re =~ str         1.150000   0.000000   1.150000 (  1.144880)
str =~ re         1.160000   0.000000   1.160000 (  1.150691)
str[re]           1.330000   0.000000   1.330000 (  1.337064)
re.match str      2.250000   0.000000   2.250000 (  2.255142)
str.match re      2.270000   0.000000   2.270000 (  2.270948)

Results MRI 2.3.3 (there is a regression in regex matching, it seems):

$ ./bench-re.rb  | sort -t $'\t' -k 2
       user     system      total        real
re =~ str         3.540000   0.000000   3.540000 (  3.535881)
str =~ re         3.560000   0.000000   3.560000 (  3.560657)
str[re]           4.300000   0.000000   4.300000 (  4.299403)
re.match str      5.210000   0.010000   5.220000 (  5.213041)
str.match re      6.000000   0.000000   6.000000 (  6.000465)

Results MRI 2.4.0:

$ ./bench-re.rb  | sort -t $'\t' -k 2
       user     system      total        real
re.match? str     0.690000   0.010000   0.700000 (  0.682934)
re =~ str         1.040000   0.000000   1.040000 (  1.035863)
str =~ re         1.040000   0.000000   1.040000 (  1.042963)
str[re]           1.340000   0.000000   1.340000 (  1.339704)
re.match str      2.040000   0.000000   2.040000 (  2.046464)
str.match re      2.180000   0.000000   2.180000 (  2.174691)

What about re === str (case compare)?

Since it evaluates to true or false and has no need for storing matches, returning match index and that stuff, I wonder if it would be an even faster way of matching than =~.

Ok, I tested this. =~ is still faster, even if you have multiple capture groups, however it is faster than the other options.

BTW, what good is freeze? I couldn't measure any performance boost from it.