Benchmark: 2 times startsWith vs slice

Tests:

slice
const fullHouseNumber = '1/23A'; const prefix = fullHouseNumber.slice(0, 5); if (prefix === 'Unit ' || prefix === 'Flat '); const prefix2 = fullHouseNumber.slice(0, 10); if (prefix2 === 'Apartment ');
startsWith
const fullHouseNumber = '1/23A'; if ( fullHouseNumber.startsWith('Unit ') || fullHouseNumber.startsWith('Flat ') ); if (fullHouseNumber.startsWith('Apartment '));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slice
startsWith

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test consists of two individual test cases:

1. **`slice`**: Compares the performance of using `slice()` to extract a substring from a string (`fullHouseNumber`) with a specific prefix.
2. **`startsWith`**: Compares the performance of using `startsWith()` to check if a string starts with a specific prefix.

**Comparison**

In both test cases, the benchmark measures the time it takes to execute the following code:

1. Define a variable `fullHouseNumber` with a specific value containing a suffix (`'A'`).
2. Extract a substring from `fullHouseNumber` using either `slice()` or `startsWith()`.
3. Perform an additional check on the extracted substring (e.g., checking if it matches a specific prefix).

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`slice()`**: A method that extracts a portion of a string, starting from a specified index and returning a new string with the extracted portion.
2. **`startsWith()`**: A method that checks if a string starts with another specified string.

**Pros and Cons**

**`slice()`**

Pros:

* Directly extracts the desired substring, which can be more efficient for specific use cases.
* Allows for more control over the extraction process (e.g., specifying an index range).

Cons:

* Can be slower than `startsWith()` for shorter substrings or when using a large number of iterations.
* May incur additional overhead due to string manipulation.

**`startsWith()`**

Pros:

* Typically faster than `slice()` for shorter substrings or when using a large number of iterations.
* More concise and easier to read in some cases.

Cons:

* Less flexible than `slice()`, as it only checks if the string starts with a specific prefix.
* May incur additional overhead due to string manipulation.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, both `slice()` and `startsWith()` are built-in methods in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the performance comparison between two simple string manipulation methods.

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting these results, consider the following:

* The benchmark measures execution time per second (`ExecutionsPerSecond`), which may not reflect the actual time taken to execute the code in a real-world scenario.
* The test cases use a specific input value for `fullHouseNumber`, which might not be representative of all possible inputs.
* The benchmark is run on a single device platform (Desktop, Windows 10) with a specific browser version (Chrome 103), which may limit the generalizability of the results.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Regular Expressions**: Using regular expressions to match patterns can be an efficient way to perform string matching.
2. **String Methods**: Other string methods like `indexOf()`, `lastIndexOf()`, or `includes()` may offer different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case.
3. **Native Support**: Depending on the browser and JavaScript version, some features might be natively supported without requiring additional libraries or polyfills.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not directly compare to `slice()` and `startsWith()` but can provide alternative solutions for specific string manipulation tasks.

Related benchmarks:

2 times startsWith vs slice (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slice vs startsWith

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slice

startsWith

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):