Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
startswith vs includes - StazriN
(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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net! The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: `startsWith` and `includes`. These test cases aim to compare the performance of two different string methods in JavaScript. **Options Compared:** 1. **`str.startsWith("https://firebase")`**: This method checks if the string `str` starts with the specified substring `"https://firebase"`. 2. **`str.includes("https://firebase")`**: This method checks if the string `str` contains the specified substring `"https://firebase"` anywhere in its sequence of characters. **Pros and Cons:** * **`startsWith` Method:** * Pros: * Typically faster, as it only needs to check a single character at the beginning of the string. * May be beneficial for shorter strings or cases where the prefix is known to exist. * Cons: * May not work correctly if the input string is empty or has leading whitespace characters. * Can return false positives if the prefix matches but the actual matching part comes later in the string (less likely for a simple "starts with" check). * **`includes` Method:** * Pros: * More versatile and accurate, as it checks for any occurrence of the substring within the entire string. * Handles edge cases like empty strings or leading whitespace characters more effectively than `startsWith`. * Cons: * Generally slower, especially for large strings, due to the need to search through all characters. **Library and Special JS Features:** * No specific libraries are used in these benchmark test cases. * **ES6+ Features:** Neither of these methods is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 or later. However, it's worth noting that both `startsWith` and `includes` are supported by older browsers through various polyfills or fallbacks. **Other Considerations:** * When writing performance-critical code, the choice between `startsWith` and `includes` depends on the specific requirements of your use case. * If you know the prefix is guaranteed to exist at the beginning of the string, using `startsWith` might be a good choice for performance reasons. Otherwise, `includes` may provide more accuracy but come with a slight performance penalty. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives or approaches you could consider include: 1. Using `localeCompare()` method for comparing strings, which can be useful in specific scenarios. 2. Implementing your own string comparison function using bitwise operations and indexing. 3. Considering the use of libraries like [string-trie](https://github.com/GoogleChrome/string-trie) or [fast-strings](https://github.com/paulmillr/fast-strings) for optimized string matching. Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more development effort, but they can provide customizability and flexibility to address specific performance requirements or edge cases.
Related benchmarks:
String indexOf vs startsWith/endsWith
javascript startsWith() vs includes()
Js Search - String StartsWith vs Includes
check application json startswith vs includes
startsWith vs includes (when no match)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?