Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Check value in string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
includes vs for
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var s = 'efvbhytrfvbnhgtrfvbhtrfhgfdf *ùùùùù*ù$$ùgegkopsfgjspdjfg123456765432'
Tests:
includes
return s.includes(' ')
for
function a(s, c) { for (let i = 0 ; i < s.length; ++i) { if (s[i] === c) return true } return false } return a(s, ' ')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
includes
for
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'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various components. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two different approaches for checking if a specific character exists in a given string: `includes` (using the built-in `includes()` method) and `for` (manually iterating through the string using a loop). **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **`includes`**: This approach uses the built-in `includes()` method to check if a character exists in the string. 2. **`for`**: This approach manually iterates through the string using a loop, checking each character individually. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** ### `includes` Pros: * Shorter code (only one line) * More readable (no need to manually iterate through the string) * Built-in method is optimized for performance Cons: * May be slower due to overhead of the built-in method * May not be as efficient for large strings or specific use cases ### `for` Pros: * Can be more efficient for large strings or specific use cases (e.g., finding a character at a known index) * Allows for fine-grained control over the iteration process * No overhead of a built-in method Cons: * Longer code (requires manual iteration through the string) * Less readable (may require additional comments to understand the logic) **Library Used** None in this case. The `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript function. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax and do not rely on any advanced language features. **Other Considerations** The benchmark considers factors such as: * String size: Larger strings may affect the performance of both approaches. * Character set: The character set used in the string (e.g., Unicode) may impact performance. * Browser and platform: Different browsers and platforms may have varying levels of optimization for these functions. **Alternative Approaches** Other alternatives to consider when testing string searching algorithms include: 1. **Regex**: Using regular expressions can provide a more efficient way to search for patterns in strings, but may be overkill for simple character searches. 2. **Array methods**: Methods like `indexOf()` or `findIndex()` could be used instead of the built-in `includes()` method, depending on the specific requirements. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.
Related benchmarks:
Alphanumeric
Encode byte string test (string concatenation vs. map join)
Alphanumeric String test 1
Alphanumeric String test 2
OnlyLetterAndNumbers c# regex vs loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?