Benchmark: check application json startswith vs includes

Tests:

includes
const str = "application/json; charset=utf-8" str.includes("application/json")
startsWith
const str = "application/json; charset=utf-8" str.startsWith("application/json")

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: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	1308550656.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	19261588.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Description:**

The benchmark is testing two approaches for checking if a string starts with or includes another substring:

1. `str.startsWith("application/json")`
2. `str.includes("application/json")`

**Options Compared:**

The two options are being compared, which means we're evaluating their performance in this specific scenario.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

**`startsWith`:**

Pros:

* More efficient for strings that start with the specified substring, as it only needs to check the first few characters.
* Can be optimized by checking if the string is shorter than the prefix length.

Cons:

* May return false positives if the string contains the specified substring elsewhere (e.g., "application/json; charset=utf-8").
* Doesn't handle edge cases like empty strings or null inputs well.

**`includes`:**

Pros:

* Returns true for any occurrence of the substring within the string, including non-contiguous matches.
* Handles edge cases like empty strings and null inputs correctly.

Cons:

* May be slower than `startsWith` for short strings that start with the specified substring, due to the need to scan the entire string.
* Can lead to false positives if the string contains the specified substring elsewhere (e.g., "application/json; charset=utf-8").

**Library Used:**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use a library explicitly. However, it's worth noting that `startsWith` and `includes` are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

There aren't any special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two straightforward string comparison methods.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using regular expressions (`RegExp.test` or `String.prototype.match`)
* Using a custom implementation with a loop or recursion
* Using a different language or platform (e.g., C++ or Java) for the benchmarking

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test setup.

Related benchmarks:

check application json startswith vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

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):