Benchmark: 654659841984986548498985498498564987654687984

Tests:

Metodo 1
const targetString = 'abson' const mlLengthAnterior = 3 const str = 'son' if (targetString.indexOf(str) + mlLengthAnterior === targetString.length) { }
Metodo 2
const targetString = 'abson' const mlLengthAnterior = 3 const str = 'son' if (targetString.indexOf(str, targetString.length - mlLengthAnterior) !== -1) { }
Metodo 3
const targetString = 'abson' const mlLengthAnterior = 3 const str = 'son' if (targetString.slice(-mlLengthAnterior) === str) { }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Metodo 1
Metodo 2
Metodo 3

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 JSON and benchmark information to understand what's being tested and compared.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches for checking if a target string contains a specific substring, ignoring the length of the target string. The goal is to determine which approach is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

There are three test cases:

1. **Method 1**: Uses `indexOf()` method with no offset.
2. **Method 2**: Uses `indexOf()` method with an offset equal to the length of the target string minus the length of the substring.
3. **Method 3**: Uses `slice()` method to extract a substring from the end of the target string.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Method 1 (`indexOf()` without offset)**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported, no additional processing required.
	* Cons: May return -1 if the substring is not found, leading to unnecessary iterations in the following code.
2. **Method 2 (`indexOf()` with offset)**:
	* Pros: Avoids issues with `indexOf()` returning -1, but requires calculating the offset.
	* Cons: Requires additional processing to calculate the offset and may lead to slower performance due to string slicing.
3. **Method 3 (`slice()` method)**:
	* Pros: Efficiently extracts the substring without requiring additional processing, eliminating potential issues with `indexOf()` returning -1.
	* Cons: May be less widely supported than `indexOf()`.

**Library/Functionality**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library or a specific function other than built-in JavaScript methods (`indexOf()`, `slice()`).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't include any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only relies on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could be:

* Using regular expressions (RegEx) with the `test()` method, which can provide more flexibility but may also introduce performance overhead.
* Utilizing specialized string processing libraries or functions that are optimized for substring matching, such as those found in some text processing frameworks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark setup and test cases, making them less relevant to this specific benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

654659841984986548498985498498564987654687984 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Metodo 1 vs Metodo 2 vs Metodo 3

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Metodo 1

Metodo 2

Metodo 3

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):