Benchmark: startswith vs includes full search

Tests:

includes
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.includes("https://firebase")
startsWith
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.startsWith("https://firebase")

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 (Android 14; Mobile; rv:130.0) Gecko/130.0 Firefox/130.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 130 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	1139460736.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	1132189696.0 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 JSON data and explain what is being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides the general framework for the test, but it doesn't reveal much about the specific task being performed. However, based on the individual test cases, we can infer that the test measures the performance difference between two string methods:

1. `str.includes()` - searches for a substring within a string.
2. `str.startsWith()` - checks if a string starts with a specified value.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are likely to be the implementation details of these string methods in different JavaScript engines or libraries. In this case, MeasureThat.net is comparing the performance of:

1. `includes()` method from Firefox Mobile 130 ( Gecko/130.0 Firefox/130.0 )
2. `startsWith()` method from Firefox Mobile 130 ( Gecko/130.0 Firefox/130.0 )

**Pros and Cons**

The choice between `includes()` and `startsWith()` depends on the specific use case:

* `str.includes()`: Pros:
	+ More flexible, as it can search for any substring within a string.
	+ Suitable for situations where you need to find multiple matches or perform partial matching.
* Cons:
	+ May be slower than `startsWith()` due to its internal implementation, which involves iterating over the entire string.
* `str.startsWith()`: Pros:
	+ Faster, as it only checks if the start of the string matches a specific value.
	+ Suitable for situations where you need to verify if a string starts with a particular substring.
* Cons:
	+ Less flexible than `includes()`, as it only searches for an exact match at the beginning of the string.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. However, if MeasureThat.net were to include library-specific tests in the future, they might involve using a regex engine or a custom implementation of the string methods.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided data. The focus is on comparing the performance of two built-in string methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If MeasureThat.net were to expand its benchmarking capabilities, other alternatives could include:

* Comparing different string method implementations from other JavaScript engines (e.g., Chrome, Safari).
* Testing the performance of custom or third-party string processing libraries.
* Evaluating the impact of different search algorithms on performance.

In conclusion, MeasureThat.net is currently comparing the performance of `includes()` and `startsWith()` methods in Firefox Mobile 130. The choice between these options depends on the specific use case, with `includes()` being more flexible but potentially slower, and `startsWith()` being faster but less flexible.

Related benchmarks:

startswith vs includes full search (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):