Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
startswith vs includes - improved
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
includes vs startsWith
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Measuring the performance of two different string methods in JavaScript: `includes` and `startsWith`. Let's break down what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **What is being tested?** The benchmark compares the execution speed of the `includes` method versus the `startsWith` method on a specific input string. The input string contains the URL "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing". **Options compared:** 1. **Includes**: The `includes` method checks if a substring exists within another string. 2. **StartsWith**: The `startsWith` method checks if a string starts with a specified value. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Includes**: * Pros: More flexible, as it can check for any substring. * Cons: May be slower than `startsWith` due to the need to search through the entire string. 2. **StartsWith**: * Pros: Typically faster, since it only needs to compare a fixed-length prefix. * Cons: Less flexible, as it only checks if the string starts with the specified value. In general, `includes` is a more versatile method, but its performance may suffer due to the need to search through the entire string. On the other hand, `startsWith` is faster, but less flexible. **Library and special JS feature:** There are no specific libraries or special JavaScript features mentioned in this benchmark. **Other alternatives:** For comparing string methods, you might also consider using: 1. **String.prototype.match()**: A more general method for searching a pattern within a string. 2. **String.prototype.lastIndexOf()**: Similar to `includes`, but returns the index of the last occurrence of the specified value. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and usage scenarios compared to `includes` and `startsWith`. **Benchmark preparation code:** The provided benchmark script prepares an input string and then calls either the `includes` or `startsWith` method on it. The script is likely responsible for measuring the execution time of each method. **Individual test cases:** Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` and a corresponding `Test Name`. In this case, we have two test cases: 1. "includes": Compares the execution speed of the `includes` method. 2. "startsWith": Compares the execution speed of the `startsWith` method. These test cases provide insight into how each method performs on the specified input string. **Latest benchmark result:** The latest benchmark results show the performance of both methods on the same input string, measured by the number of executions per second. The results suggest that: * `includes` is slower than `startsWith`, with approximately 1000 times fewer executions per second. * However, `includes` may be more flexible and suitable for certain use cases. Keep in mind that these results are specific to this input string and may not generalize to other scenarios.
Related benchmarks:
javascript startsWith() vs includes()
Js Search - String StartsWith vs Includes
check application json startswith vs includes
startsWith vs includes (when no match)
equals vs includes (one value)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?