Benchmark: .endsWith vs .indexOf (2)

Script Preparation code:

var string = '.html';
var stringToCheck = '/home/ashwin/code/webcrafters/drip-stream/drip-stream-fe/build/index.html';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.indexOf(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two string manipulation methods: `.endsWith` and `.indexOf`. Specifically, it tests whether the `stringToCheck` ends with the `string` or contains the `string`.

**Options compared:**

1. **.endsWith**: This method checks if the string ends with a specified suffix.
2. **.indexOf**: This method searches for a specified substring within a string and returns its index (0 if not found).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* `.endsWith`:
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient when searching for a fixed-length suffix.
		- Can be implemented in a single operation, reducing overhead.
	+ Cons:
		- May perform slower for shorter strings or when searching for a prefix.
		- Less flexible than `.indexOf`, as it only checks for a specific suffix.
* `.indexOf`:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible, as it searches for any substring, not just a fixed-length suffix.
		- Can be faster for longer strings or when searching for a prefix.
	+ Cons:
		- May perform slower due to the overhead of searching the entire string.

**Library:**

None. This benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript methods (`endsWith` and `indexOf`) without any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

Now, let's look at the latest benchmark results:

The results show that `.includes` (not shown in the original benchmark) would likely be faster than both `.endsWith` and `.indexOf` for this specific test case. However, this is not surprising, as `.includes` is designed to search for any substring within a string.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to rewrite the benchmark using alternative approaches, some options could include:

* Using `str.endsWith()` or `str.lastIndexOf()`, which are similar to `.endsWith` but might be more efficient.
* Implementing your own custom string searching algorithm, which could potentially offer better performance but also introduces more complexity and potential bugs.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific use case and requirements. MeasureThat.net provides a useful platform for comparing different methods and identifying the most efficient solutions.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs .indexOf (2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

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):