Benchmark: .endsWith vs .includes diff strings

Script Preparation code:

var stringEnd = '.svg';
var stringInclude = 'v2assets'
var stringToCheck = 'http://localhost:4200/v2assets/images/icon-svgs/icon-close.component.svg';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(stringEnd);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(stringInclude);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	9373343.0 Ops/sec
.includes	8799736.0 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 this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two string methods: `endsWith` and `.includes`. The test case uses predefined strings:

* `stringEnd`: ends with ".svg"
* `stringInclude`: contains "v2assets"
* `stringToCheck`: a specific URL that ends with ".svg"

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two options:

1. **`endsWith(stringEnd)`**: checks if `stringToCheck` ends with `stringEnd`.
2. **`.includes(stringInclude)`**: searches for `stringInclude` within `stringToCheck`.

**Pros and Cons:**

* `.endsWith(stringEnd)`: advantages:
	+ More explicit and efficient way to check if a string ends with a specific substring.
	+ Can be faster in some cases, as it only checks the end of the string.
* `.includes(stringInclude)` : disadvantages:
	+ May be slower due to the overhead of searching for a substring within the entire string.
	+ Requires more memory allocations and comparisons.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a URL `stringToCheck` that is quite long, which may affect performance. In a real-world scenario, strings might be shorter or more variable, impacting the results.
* The test doesn't account for edge cases like an empty string, null, or undefined inputs.

**Library and purpose:**

There are no external libraries mentioned in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, if you were to analyze other benchmarks on MeasureThat.net, you might find examples of more advanced features like async/await, Web Workers, or specific browser-specific APIs.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other alternatives for string manipulation might include:

* Using regular expressions (` RegExp.test()` ) for substring searching.
* Employing a custom implementation using bitwise operations and indexing (e.g., `stringToCheck.charCodeAt(stringToCheck.length - 1) == stringEnd.charCodeAt(stringEnd.length - 1)`).
* Leveraging native string methods like `indexOf()` or `lastIndexOf()` in combination with comparisons.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and potential trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs .includes diff strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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