Benchmark: Real startsWith VS includes

Tests:

includes
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.includes("https://firebase")
startsWith
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.startsWith("https://firebase")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
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.

Let's break down the test cases and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the JavaScript code to be executed. In this case, there are two benchmarks:

1. `startsWith`: This benchmark tests the performance of the `str.startsWith()` method on a string `str` containing the text `"https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"`. The method checks if the string starts with the specified substring.
2. `includes`: This benchmark tests the performance of the `str.includes()` method on the same string `str`, but this time, it checks if the string includes the specified substring `"https://firebase"`.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `startsWith()`
2. `includes()`

These methods differ in their behavior when searching for a substring within a string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. `startsWith()`:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it only needs to compare the first characters of both strings.
		+ More efficient, especially for short substrings or strings with few characters.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for finding substrings in the middle or at the end of a string.
2. `includes()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Suitable for finding substrings anywhere within the string.
		- More flexible, as it allows searching for substrings with any length.
	* Cons:
		- May be slower, especially for large strings or long substrings.

**Library and its purpose**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. The `str` variable is defined directly in the script preparation code, which means that the benchmark is testing the performance of the built-in string methods provided by JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmarks. Both tests use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in methods for working with strings.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, you could consider using other approaches, such as:

1. Using a different string comparison library (e.g., `indexOf()` instead of `includes()`).
2. Implementing custom string searching algorithms.
3. Comparing performance across multiple browsers or environments.
4. Adding more test cases with varying input data or edge cases.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and implementation, and may not provide similar insights into the performance of JavaScript's built-in string methods.

In summary, the "Real startsWith VS includes" benchmark tests the performance difference between two common string comparison methods: `startsWith()` and `includes()`. The results can help developers optimize their code for optimal performance when working with strings.

Related benchmarks:

Real startsWith VS includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

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):