Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Search vs indexOf
(version: 0)
Search vs indexOf
Comparing performance of:
indexOf vs search
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
indexOf
const strStr = function(haystack, needle) { return haystack.indexOf(needle); };
search
const strStr = function(haystack, needle) { return haystack.search(needle); };
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
indexOf
search
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 break down what's being tested in this benchmark. The benchmark is comparing two approaches to search for a substring within a string: `indexOf` and `search`. **indexOf** The `indexOf` method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if it's not found. In JavaScript, strings are zero-indexed, meaning the first character is at index 0. **search** The `search` method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if it's not found. However, unlike `indexOf`, `search` performs a case-insensitive search by default (since we're using strings). Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach: **Pros of `indexOf`:** * Faster execution time, especially for large strings * Can be used to check if a substring exists within a string **Cons of `indexOf`:** * Performs a case-sensitive search by default (unless `ignoreCase` is set) * Returns -1 immediately if the substring is not found, which might lead to unnecessary computations **Pros of `search`:** * Performs a case-insensitive search * More intuitive for developers who are used to searching in strings with this behavior **Cons of `search`:** * Can be slower than `indexOf` due to the added overhead of the search algorithm * Returns -1 immediately if the substring is not found, which might lead to unnecessary computations Another consideration is that some JavaScript engines (like SpiderMonkey) have a difference in behavior between `indexOf` and `search` methods. In some cases, `search` can be slower than `indexOf`, while in others it's faster. In this specific benchmark, we're measuring the execution time of both methods on Chrome 113, which has a relatively fast JavaScript engine. The results suggest that `indexOf` is slightly faster than `search`. As for libraries and special features, there are no explicit mentions of any external libraries being used in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines (like V8) have built-in optimizations for certain string methods. If you were to create a new benchmark with different test cases or scenarios, you'd want to consider factors like: * The size and complexity of the strings being searched * The frequency of substring existence in the string * Any specific requirements or constraints on the search algorithm (e.g., case sensitivity, performance considerations) Other alternatives for searching substrings in JavaScript include using regular expressions (` RegExp.test()` or `RegExp.exec()`), which can be more powerful and flexible but also slower than the built-in `indexOf` and `search` methods. Keep in mind that this benchmark is just one possible way to compare these two methods, and you may want to explore other approaches depending on your specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
index vs lastindexof empty
index vs lastindexof empty with startIndex set to 0
JavaScript search() vs indexOf()
String.indexOf vs String.indexOf with the second parameter
String.indexOf(char) vs String.indexOf(char, position)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?