Benchmark: indexof vs equal with equals

Script Preparation code:

var COUNT = 0;
var character = 'a';

Tests:

indexof
if(character.indexOf('a') >= 0){COUNT++}
triple
if(character === "a"){COUNT++}
double
if(character == "a"){COUNT++}
triple self
if(character === character ){COUNT++}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexof
triple
double
triple self

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/17.5 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexof	11849890.0 Ops/sec
triple	12308254.0 Ops/sec
double	12285577.0 Ops/sec
triple self	9283521.0 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 benchmarking world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark that compares three different approaches for checking if a single character 'a' is present in the `character` variable.

**Options Compared**

1. **`indexOf()`**: The `indexOf()` method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if not found.
2. **Double equals (`===`)**: This operator checks for both equality and type compatibility between two values.
3. **Triple equals (`!==`) combined with a self-comparison**: This approach is a bit unconventional but attempts to exploit a potential optimization by comparing `character` with itself.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`indexOf()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and well-established method.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for this specific use case, as it searches the entire string.
2. **Double equals (`===`)**:
	* Pros: Fast and easy to implement.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if `character` is not a string or has other data types.
3. **Triple equals (`!==`) combined with a self-comparison**:
	* Pros: Attempts to exploit potential optimization by comparing the same value twice, but this approach is not widely supported and may have performance implications.

In general, `indexOf()` is the most reliable and efficient method for this specific use case. The double equals operator can be convenient, but it's essential to consider type compatibility issues. The triple equals combined with self-comparison approach is unconventional and not recommended due to potential performance implications and limited browser support.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used beyond the built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark code. The focus is on comparing three simple approaches to check for a character presence in a string variable.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative methods for checking if a single character 'a' is present in `character` might include:

* Using a regular expression (`/a/`)
* Utilizing a bit manipulation technique (e.g., `((c - 97) === 0)` where `c` is the ASCII code of 'a')
* Employing a custom implementation using bitwise operations

However, these approaches are not part of the standard JavaScript library and may require additional consideration for their performance and compatibility.

Keep in mind that the goal of microbenchmarks like this one is to compare simple, self-contained snippets of code to identify potential optimization opportunities or performance differences between various approaches.

Related benchmarks:

indexof vs equal with equals (version: 1)

compare single character

Comparing performance of: indexof vs triple vs double vs triple self

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

indexof

triple

double

triple self

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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