Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test of equals
(version: 0)
test
Comparing performance of:
test == vs test includes
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
test ==
var n = 0; var test = "test"; while(true) { n++; if(test == "test") { } if(n==100000) break; }
test includes
var n = 0; var test = "test"; while(true) { n++; if(test.includes("test")) { } if(n==100000) break; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
test ==
test includes
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):
I'll break down the benchmark test for you. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to compare the performance of JavaScript code: using the `==` operator versus using the `includes()` method. **Approaches Being Compared** 1. **Using the `==` operator**: This approach compares two strings using the loose equality operator (`==`). In JavaScript, this operator checks if both strings have the same value and are also of the same type (i.e., string). 2. **Using the `includes()` method**: This approach uses the `includes()` method to check if a substring is present within another string. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Using the `==` operator**: * Pros: Simple and widely supported. * Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior when dealing with non-ASCII characters, null or undefined values, or NaN (Not a Number) values. 2. **Using the `includes()` method**: * Pros: More robust and efficient for large strings, as it only checks if the substring is present without creating a new string. * Cons: Requires support for modern JavaScript features and may not work in older browsers or environments. **Library Used** None explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that both approaches rely on built-in JavaScript functions (`==` and `includes()`). **Special JavaScript Features/Syntax** Neither of these approaches requires any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern JavaScript environments. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to test similar benchmarks for alternative approaches, some possibilities could include: * Using regular expressions instead of the `includes()` method * Checking if a substring is present using a loop * Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for string manipulation * Testing performance with different string normalization techniques (e.g., `toLowerCase()`, `trim()`, etc.) Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity and variations, making the benchmark more challenging to interpret. I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark test!
Related benchmarks:
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster?
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster2?
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster? check for null
Which equals operator (== with type coercion vs ===) is faster?
Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster with string comparison?
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?