Benchmark: startswith vs includes on lorem ipsim

Tests:

includes
const str = "There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don't look even slightly believable. If you are going to use a passage of Lorem Ipsum, you need to be sure there isn't anything embarrassing hidden in the middle of text. All the Lorem Ipsum generators on the Internet tend to repeat predefined chunks as necessary, making this the first true generator on the Internet. It uses a dictionary of over 200 Latin words, combined with a handful of model sentence structures, to generate Lorem Ipsum which looks reasonable. The generated Lorem Ipsum is therefore always free from repetition, injected humour, or non-characteristic words etc." str.includes("There are many variations")
startsWith
const str = "There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don't look even slightly believable. If you are going to use a passage of Lorem Ipsum, you need to be sure there isn't anything embarrassing hidden in the middle of text. All the Lorem Ipsum generators on the Internet tend to repeat predefined chunks as necessary, making this the first true generator on the Internet. It uses a dictionary of over 200 Latin words, combined with a handful of model sentence structures, to generate Lorem Ipsum which looks reasonable. The generated Lorem Ipsum is therefore always free from repetition, injected humour, or non-characteristic words etc." str.startsWith("There are many variations")

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:

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 JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed in detail.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a single object with the following properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "startswith vs includes on lorem ipsim".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating no description is provided.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Both are null, meaning no custom script or HTML code needs to be prepared for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Test Case 1: "includes"**
	* The benchmark definition is a string literal that contains text with the substring "There are many variations". The `includes` method is then called on this string, and the result is expected to be true.
2. **Test Case 2: "startsWith"**
	* The benchmark definition is similar to Test Case 1, but it calls the `startsWith` method instead of `includes`. This time, the result is expected to be false.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are comparing the performance differences between using the `includes` and `startsWith` methods when searching for a specific substring within a larger string. The strings being searched are identical in both cases.

**Options Compared**

* **`includes` vs `startsWith`**: These two methods have different behaviors:
	+ `includes` checks if the specified value is present anywhere in the string, regardless of position.
	+ `startsWith` checks if the specified value is present at the beginning of the string.
* **Character comparison**: In both cases, character-by-character comparison is used to determine the presence of the substring.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`includes`**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, as it can find the substring anywhere in the string.
	+ Cons: May be slower for large strings due to the need for more extensive searches.
* **`startsWith`**:
	+ Pros: Can potentially be faster for larger strings, as it only needs to check the beginning of the string.
	+ Cons: Less flexible, as it requires the substring to start at the exact beginning of the string.

**Library and Special Features**

In both cases, no external libraries are used. However:

* **Regular expressions**: Although not explicitly mentioned, regular expressions (regex) could potentially be used to achieve similar results using more advanced string matching techniques.
* **Special JavaScript features**: There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being leveraged in these test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to compare the performance of `includes` and `startsWith`, consider:

* Using a different library, like `String.prototype.localeIndexOf()` which can provide more flexible substring matching.
* Exploring more advanced techniques, such as using bitwise operations or Boyer-Moore algorithm-based string searching.

In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance difference between using the `includes` and `startsWith` methods for substring matching in JavaScript strings. The results should indicate whether one method is faster than the other for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

startswith vs includes on lorem ipsim (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

startsWith

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):