Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes on string

Script Preparation code:

var text = 'en-US'

Tests:

IndexOf
text.indexOf('en') === 0
Includes
text.includes('en')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
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.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches for checking if a string contains or equals a specific value. The two methods are:

1. `indexOf`: A method that returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value in the string.
2. `includes`: A method that returns `true` if the string includes the specified value, and `false` otherwise.

**Script Preparation Code:**

The script preparation code is setting up a string variable `text` with the value `'en-US'`.

**Html Preparation Code:**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means the benchmark is running in a headless environment, likely for performance testing purposes.

**Individual Test Cases:**

The two test cases are:

1. **IndexOf**: The script checks if the index of the first occurrence of `'en'` in the `text` string is equal to 0.
2. **Includes**: The script checks if the `text` string includes the value `'en'`.

**Library:**

There is no explicit library mentioned, but both methods rely on the built-in JavaScript String prototype.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional context to understand.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **`indexOf`**: A method that returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value.
2. **`includes`**: A method that returns `true` if the string includes the specified value, and `false` otherwise.

**Pros and Cons:**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`indexOf`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient.
		+ Can be used for more complex string matching tasks.
	* Cons:
		+ May return `-1` if the value is not found, which can lead to edge cases.
2. **`includes`**:
	+ Pros:
		+ Returns a boolean value (`true` or `false`) making it easier to handle results.
		+ Does not require checking for the existence of the value (like with `indexOf`).
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than `indexOf` due to additional checks.

**Other Considerations:**

1. **Edge cases**: Both methods have edge cases, such as returning `-1` when `indexOf` fails or returning a boolean value when `includes` succeeds.
2. **Performance**: The benchmark results will show which method is faster and more efficient for this specific use case.
3. **Readability**: Some developers might prefer the simplicity of `includes`, while others might find it less intuitive than `indexOf`.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to these methods include:

1. **Regular expressions**: Can be used for complex string matching tasks, but may be overkill for simple checks like this.
2. **Substring matching**: Using a substring search algorithm, such as Knuth-Morris-Pratt or Rabin-Karp, can provide faster results than `indexOf` and `includes`.
3. **String searching libraries**: Specialized libraries, like SREG or StringSearch, can offer optimized string matching algorithms for performance-critical applications.

Overall, the benchmark is testing the performance and efficiency of two common JavaScript methods for checking if a string contains or equals a specific value.

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf vs Includes on string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

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):