Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
startswith vs includes v2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
includes vs startsWith
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
includes
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing-a-bunch-of-text-etc asdfghjkl" str.includes("https://firebase")
startsWith
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing-a-bunch-of-text-etc asdfghjkl" 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. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark compares two string methods: `includes` and `startsWith`. The test cases are designed to measure which method is faster for searching a specific substring within a larger string. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`str.includes("https://firebase")`**: This method checks if the string `str` contains the specified substring `"https://firebase"`. 2. **`str.startsWith("https://firebase")`**: This method checks if the string `str` starts with the specified substring `"https://firebase"`. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`includes()`**: * Pros: More flexible, can be used to search for any substring within the string, not just a fixed-length prefix. * Cons: May perform more overhead due to the algorithm's complexity, potentially leading to slower performance. 2. **`startsWith()`**: * Pros: Smaller overhead compared to `includes()`, as it only needs to check the first character of the string. * Cons: Less flexible than `includes()`, only suitable for searching a fixed-length prefix. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, some browsers may use internal libraries or optimized implementations of these methods that are not explicitly referenced here. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two built-in string methods. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following: 1. **Regular Expressions (Regex)**: Using regular expressions can provide more flexibility and power, but may also introduce additional overhead. 2. **String.search()**: This method is similar to `includes()` but returns an index value instead of a boolean result. To experiment with these alternatives, you could modify the benchmark definition to include a third test case that uses either Regex or `String.search()`. MeasureThat.net allows you to define custom benchmark definitions and scripts, so feel free to get creative!
Related benchmarks:
javascript startsWith() vs includes()
Js Search - String StartsWith vs Includes
check application json startswith vs includes
startsWith vs includes when no match
startsWith vs includes (when no match)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?