Benchmark: .endsWith vs .includes

Script Preparation code:

var full = 'v1/orgs/ZYbD5Gu_T2qvZau9ovIyyw/edge-republishes';
var fragment = 'edge-republishes';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = full.endsWith(fragment);
.includes
result = full.includes(fragment);

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two string methods: `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`. The goal is to determine which method is more efficient in terms of execution time.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. `.endsWith(fragment)`: This method checks if the `full` string ends with the `fragment` substring.
2. `.includes(fragment)`: This method checks if the `full` string includes the `fragment` substring.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `.endsWith()`: This method is more efficient because it uses a simple indexing operation to check if the string ends at the specified index. It's also less prone to false positives since it only considers the last few characters.
* `.includes()`: This method is generally slower because it needs to iterate through the entire string to find the substring. However, some browsers might use a more efficient algorithm under the hood.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark doesn't account for other factors that might affect performance, such as:

* String length: If `full` and `fragment` are very long, `.endsWith()` might still be faster.
* Browser-specific optimizations: Some browsers might optimize their string comparison algorithms, making one method faster than the other.

**Library Used (None)**

Neither of the test cases uses a library that affects the performance comparison. Both methods are part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing two built-in string methods.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create your own benchmark for similar scenarios, consider using a different approach:

1. Use a more comprehensive testing framework like Jest or Mocha.
2. Create custom test fixtures with varied input strings and lengths.
3. Experiment with different browsers, node versions, or environments (e.g., browserless) to simulate real-world usage.

Keep in mind that the results of this benchmark might not generalize to other scenarios, such as when working with large datasets or edge cases.

To create your own benchmark using MeasureThat.net:

1. Create a new benchmark and select JavaScript as the programming language.
2. Write test cases similar to the ones provided, focusing on specific string manipulation methods.
3. Run the benchmarks and analyze the results to determine which method is more efficient for your use case.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs .includes (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):