Benchmark: indexOf >-1 vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.'

Tests:

Includes
string.includes('tempor')
IndexOf
string.indexOf('tempor')>-1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
IndexOf

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions:

1. **Benchmark Definition 1**: `string.includes('tempor')`
This benchmark tests the performance of the `includes` method in JavaScript, which checks if a specified value exists within a string.
2. **Benchmark Definition 2**: `string.indexOf('tempor')>-1`
This benchmark tests the performance of the `indexOf` method in JavaScript, which returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value within a string, or -1 if not found.

**Comparison of Options**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

* `includes`: This method is part of the ECMAScript standard and is implemented by most modern browsers.
* `indexOf`: This method is also part of the ECMAScript standard but has some differences in behavior compared to `includes`.

Pros and Cons of each approach:

* `includes`:
	+ Pros: More concise syntax, easier to read and maintain. It's also more flexible as it can be used with regular expressions.
	+ Cons: Some older browsers might not support it, and it may have slightly slower performance due to the need for a regular expression engine.
* `indexOf`:
	+ Pros: Wider browser support (older browsers that don't support `includes`) and potentially faster performance due to fewer function calls.
	+ Cons: Less concise syntax, and it's less flexible as it only returns an index.

**Library Usage**

In this case, there is no explicit library being used. However, some libraries like Lodash or Ramda might provide similar functionality for `includes` and `indexOf`, but they are not explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is a special JavaScript feature/syntax being tested here: the use of whitespace as a separator between method calls. This is a syntax sugar that allows you to chain multiple method calls together, making the code more concise and readable. However, it's not explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other Considerations**

When testing performance, it's essential to consider other factors like:

* **Cacheability**: How much of the previous results can be reused or cached?
* **Overhead**: What are the overheads introduced by each method (e.g., function call, memory allocation)?
* **Branch prediction**: Can modern CPUs predict which branch will be taken more often?

**Alternatives**

If you want to test other methods for searching within a string, some alternatives include:

* Using a `while` loop or `for...of` loop to iterate through the string
* Using a regular expression with `RegExp.prototype.test()`
* Using a library like Lodash's `_.includes()` or Ramda's `R.includes()`

Related benchmarks:

indexOf >-1 vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs IndexOf

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

IndexOf

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):