Benchmark: startswith vs includes kc

Tests:

includes
const str = "22264537173,co_desktop_spl_primary-over-header-1" str.includes("22264537173")
startsWith
const str = "22264537173,co_desktop_spl_primary-over-header-1" str.startsWith("22264537173")

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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; SAMSUNG SM-J810G) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) SamsungBrowser/16.0 Chrome/92.0.4515.166 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 92 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	2924201.5 Ops/sec
startsWith	4103175.0 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 is being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to check if a string starts with a certain substring: `str.startsWith()` and `str.includes()`.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

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

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **`str.startsWith()`**:
	+ Pros: More efficient for strings that start with the target substring, as it can stop checking once it finds a match.
	+ Cons: May be slower for strings that do not start with the target substring, as it still checks every character in the string.
* **`str.includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Can handle cases where the target substring is anywhere in the string, not just at the beginning.
	+ Cons: Typically less efficient than `startsWith()` since it has to check every character in the string.

**Library used**

None of the provided benchmark code uses any external libraries. The tests are written purely in JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax.

**Benchmark preparation code**

Since no specific script preparation code is provided, we can't analyze it directly. However, the benchmark definition and individual test cases are self-contained and don't require external setup.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to measure the performance of `str.startsWith()` and `str.includes()`, other alternatives could include:

* Using a JavaScript interpreter or runtime that provides built-in support for these methods (e.g., Node.js).
* Writing custom loop-based implementations of these methods.
* Using a benchmarking library like Benchmark.js, which provides an easy-to-use API for creating and running benchmarks.

Overall, the provided benchmark is well-designed to compare the performance of two common string matching methods in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

startswith vs includes kc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: one year 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):