Benchmark: arr include vs endsWith

Script Preparation code:

var source = 'foo.jsx'
var ext = '.jsx'
var arr = ['.ts', '.tsx', '.js', '.jsx']

Tests:

endsWith
var sourceWithoutExt = source.endsWith(".ts") || source.endsWith(".tsx") || source.endsWith(".js") || source.endsWith(".jsx")
arr
arr.includes(ext)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
endsWith
arr

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 explanation.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares two approaches to check if a string includes a certain extension (.ts, .tsx, .js, or .jsx). The benchmark is designed to test the performance of these two approaches: using the `includes()` method and using conditional statements with the `endsWith()` method.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **Using the `arr.includes(ext)` approach**: This approach uses the `includes()` method on an array of extensions (`arr`) to check if a string (`source`) includes any of the extensions.
2. **Using conditional statements with `endsWith()`**: This approach uses multiple conditional statements (AND operations) with the `endsWith()` method to check if a string includes each of the four extensions.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`includes()` approach**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and easy to maintain.
	+ Cons: may be slower for large arrays or complex conditions due to the iteration over the array.
* **Conditional statements with `endsWith()`**:
	+ Pros: can be faster for simple cases (e.g., a single extension) since it avoids iterating over an array.
	+ Cons: cumbersome, harder to read and maintain, especially for larger numbers of extensions.

In general, the `includes()` approach is more concise and easier to understand, but may incur performance overhead due to array iteration. The conditional statements with `endsWith()` are faster for simple cases but become increasingly complex and harder to maintain as the number of conditions grows.

**Library and Special JS Features**

Neither of the two approaches uses a library or any special JavaScript features beyond standard language syntax.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code defines variables:

* `source`: a string representing the file path (e.g., "foo.jsx").
* `ext`: a string representing the file extension (e.g., ".jsx").

These variables are used to construct the test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark, consider using alternative approaches, such as:

1. **Regex**: Using regular expressions can provide a more concise and flexible way to match strings against patterns.
2. **Array reduction**: Applying array reduction techniques (e.g., `reduce()` or `every()`) could potentially improve performance for large arrays.
3. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: Modern JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Chrome), can JIT-compile expressions to improve performance.

However, keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and require careful consideration of the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the benchmark's purpose and the pros and cons of each approach!

Related benchmarks:

arr include vs endsWith (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: endsWith vs arr

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

endsWith

arr

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):