Benchmark: startswith vs includes simple

Tests:

includes
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.includes("https://")
startsWith
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.startsWith("https://")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
startsWith

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 26 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	72857576.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	115244056.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The test case compares two string comparison methods in JavaScript: `includes` and `startsWith`. Specifically, it measures how fast these two methods perform when checking if a string starts with a given prefix.

**Options compared:**

1. **`str.includes("https://")`**: This method checks if the string `str` contains the substring `"https://"`.
2. **`str.startsWith("https://")`**: This method checks if the string `str` starts with the substring `"https://"`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. `includes()`:
	* Pros: More flexible, as it can check for any substring, not just a prefix.
	* Cons: May be slower for exact matches, especially if the search string is shorter than the original string.
2. `startsWith()`: 
	* Pros: Faster for exact matches, as it only checks the first few characters of the string.
	* Cons: Less flexible, as it can only check for a specific prefix.

**Other considerations:**

* The test case uses no special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard strings and comparison operators.
* No libraries are mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Alternative approaches:**

1. **Using regular expressions**: Instead of using `includes()` or `startsWith()`, you could use regular expressions to achieve similar results. However, this might add unnecessary overhead due to the complexity of regular expression matching.
2. **Using a custom implementation**: Depending on your specific use case, you might want to implement your own string comparison algorithm, which could be more efficient than using built-in methods.

In summary, the benchmark tests two common JavaScript string comparison methods: `includes()` and `startsWith()`. The `includes()` method is more flexible but may be slower for exact matches, while `startsWith()` is faster but less flexible.

Related benchmarks:

startswith vs includes simple (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

startsWith

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):