Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Incldues split vs indexOf eroiughizeorgj
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
indexOf vs incldues
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var myStr = 'admin,researcher,customer'
Tests:
indexOf
const b = myStr.indexOf('admin') > -1
incldues
const b = myStr.includes('admin')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
indexOf
incldues
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: `indexOf` and `includes`. The goal is to compare the performance of these two methods for searching a string in JavaScript. **Benchmark Definitions** The first section, `Script Preparation Code`, defines a variable `myStr` with a comma-separated list of strings: `'admin,researcher,customer'`. The second section, `Html Preparation Code`, is empty, indicating that no HTML setup or page rendering is required for these benchmarks. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **indexOf**: This benchmark tests the performance of the traditional `indexOf()` method. 2. **incldues**: This benchmark tests the performance of the newer `includes()` method, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Options Compared** The two methods being compared are: * Traditional `indexOf()`: Returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if it's not found. * Newer `includes()`: Returns a boolean indicating whether the string contains the specified value. **Pros and Cons** **Traditional `indexOf()`** Pros: * Widely supported across older browsers * Can be more efficient for certain use cases Cons: * Less readable due to its traditional syntax * May perform suboptimal searches if used with short strings or in certain edge cases **Newer `includes()`** Pros: * More readable and intuitive syntax * Optimized for performance, especially with shorter strings Cons: * Less supported across older browsers (although many modern ones support it) * May incur a small overhead due to its newer syntax **Library Usage** The provided benchmark code does not use any external libraries. However, in general, when measuring the performance of JavaScript methods, libraries like `benchmark.js` can be useful for creating and running benchmarks efficiently. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There's no mention of special JavaScript features or syntax that might affect the interpretation of these benchmarks. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in comparing other string searching methods, here are some alternatives: * `startsWith()` (ECMAScript 2015+): Returns a boolean indicating whether the string starts with the specified value. * `endsWith()` (ECMAScript 2017+): Returns a boolean indicating whether the string ends with the specified value. * Regular expressions (`/regex/`): Can be used for more complex pattern matching and searching. Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity or dependencies, so it's essential to evaluate their relevance based on your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
lodash find vs native find
native indexOf vs lodash _.indexOf
lodash _.indexOf vs native indexOf
native findIndex vs lodash findIndex test
JSON.parse vs string.splitn
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?