Benchmark: .startsWith vs .indexOf

HTML Preparation code:

<div></div>

Script Preparation code:

window.regexStart = /^test/;
window.regexEnd = /test$/;
window.match = 'test';
window.matchLength = window.match.length;
var data = window.data = [];
const possible = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789";
var TOTAL_STRINGS = window.TOTAL_STRINGS = 100000;

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * max);
}

function makeRandomString(len) {
  var text = "";
  for( var i=0; i < len; i++ ) {
    text += possible.charAt(getRandomInt(possible.length));
  }
  return text;
}

while (data.length < TOTAL_STRINGS) {
  data.push(makeRandomString(getRandomInt(20)));
}

Tests:

startsWith
var x = 0; var TOTAL_STRINGS = window.TOTAL_STRINGS; var data = window.data; var match = window.match; var count = 0 while (x < TOTAL_STRINGS) { const str = data[x]; if(str.startsWith(match)) count++ x += 1; }
indexOf start
var x = 0; var TOTAL_STRINGS = window.TOTAL_STRINGS; var data = window.data; var match = window.match; var count = 0 while (x < TOTAL_STRINGS) { const str = data[x]; if(str.indexOf(match) === 0) count++; x += 1; }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

startsWith

739/s

indexOf start

284/s

Fastest: startsWith (2.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ startsWith: 739 ops/sec
• indexOf start: 284 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
startsWith
indexOf start

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

startsWith

723/s

indexOf start

214/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ startsWith	723 Ops/sec
indexOf start	214 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript code that uses two different string methods: `startsWith` and `indexOf`. Let's dive into what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**What is being tested?**

The test cases compare the execution time of two strings in a large dataset. The dataset consists of 100,000 randomly generated strings, each between 1 and 20 characters long. The test aims to determine which method is faster: `startsWith` or `indexOf`.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

### Option 1: `startsWith`

`startsWith` returns a boolean indicating whether the string starts with the specified value.

```javascript
if(str.startsWith(match)) count++
```

Pros:

* Simple and concise syntax.
* Fast execution, as it only needs to check if the string matches the prefix.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for larger datasets or longer prefixes, as it can lead to slower performance due to unnecessary comparisons.

### Option 2: `indexOf start`

`indexOf` returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value in the string. To make it comparable to `startsWith`, we're checking if the index is greater than 0:

```javascript
if(str.indexOf(match) === 0) count++
```

Pros:

* More flexible, as it can handle prefixes and suffixes.
* Can be faster for longer strings or larger datasets.

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the need to scan the entire string for the match.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark uses a variety of factors to optimize performance, such as:

* Using a large dataset with random strings.
* Avoiding unnecessary computations by only iterating over the data when needed.
* Using a simple and concise syntax for each test case.

**Library or special JS feature**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. The code is self-contained and relies solely on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature (none)**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

Now, let's talk about other alternatives:

In general, the choice between `startsWith` and `indexOf` depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. Here are some alternative approaches you might consider:

* **Regular Expressions**: For more complex pattern matching, regular expressions can be a good option.
* **Substrings**: If you need to search for substrings within a larger string, using `substr` or `substring` methods might be more suitable.
* **Slicing and Comparison**: Instead of using `startsWith` or `indexOf`, you could use slicing and comparison operations to achieve the same result.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own pros and cons, and the best choice depends on your specific requirements and performance constraints.

.startsWith vs .indexOf (version: 0) Benchmark.js

fork of https://www.measurethat.net/Benchmarks/Show/975/11/regex-vs-indexof-vs-startswith-vs-substr

Comparing performance of: `startsWith vs indexOf start`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

startsWith

indexOf start

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

.startsWith vs .indexOf (version: 0) Benchmark.js

fork of https://www.measurethat.net/Benchmarks/Show/975/11/regex-vs-indexof-vs-startswith-vs-substr

Comparing performance of: startsWith vs indexOf start

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

startsWith

indexOf start

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `startsWith vs indexOf start`