Benchmark: IndexOf_vs_includes

Script Preparation code:

var m=[]
for(i=0; i<10000; i++){
m[i]=(Math.random()*10000)|0;
}
var n=0;

Tests:

indexOf
n=0 for(i=0; i<10000; i++){ if(m.indexOf(i)>=0)n++; } n;
includes
n=0 for(i=0; i<10000; i++){ if(m.includes(i))n++; } n;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
includes

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two string methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. The script preparation code generates an array `m` with 10,000 random integers, and another variable `n` is initialized to 0. This setup will be used as a large dataset for both tests.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two string methods:

1. **indexOf**: The `indexOf` method returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value in a string, or -1 if not found.
2. **includes**: The `includes` method checks if a string includes another string as an element.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **indexOf**:
    *   Pros: Generally faster than `includes`, especially for larger datasets, since it only returns the first match instead of searching the entire array.
    *   Cons: If the specified value is not found, it returns -1, which may be considered as "false" in some contexts. This can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled properly.
*   **includes**:
    *   Pros: More intuitive and safer than `indexOf` when dealing with unknown values, since it doesn't return a specific index but rather a boolean value indicating presence or absence.
    *   Cons: Generally slower than `indexOf` for large datasets due to the need to search the entire array.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some JavaScript engines might use internal libraries under the hood for string manipulation methods like `indexOf` and `includes`. The focus of this benchmark is on comparing these built-in methods.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark that would require specific handling or explanations. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines like SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox) have implemented various optimizations and improvements for string manipulation methods over the years.

**Other alternatives**

Alternatives to these two methods might include:

*   Using regular expressions (` RegExp`) with `test()` or `exec()` methods.
*   Implementing custom loop-based solutions using a pointer or an iterator for array access.

However, these alternatives are generally less efficient and less intuitive than the built-in `indexOf` and `includes` methods. The benchmark focuses on comparing the performance of these standard JavaScript string manipulation methods.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two common string manipulation methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. While `indexOf` is often faster but has limitations in handling unknown values, `includes` provides a safer and more intuitive approach to checking for presence.

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf_vs_includes (version: 0)

IndexOf_vs_includes

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

includes

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):