Benchmark: endsWith vs includes test file names 2

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'test.ts';
var stringToCheck = 'cfdsfdsffdsfs.test.ts';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	12297714.0 Ops/sec
.includes	9345396.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark you provided tests two string methods in JavaScript: `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`, focusing specifically on their performance when applied to a string representing a filename.

### Options Compared

1. **.endsWith()**:
   - **Purpose**: This method checks whether a given string ends with the characters specified in another string. In the benchmark, it checks if `stringToCheck` (i.e., `'cfdsfdsffdsfs.test.ts'`) ends with the filename string (`'test.ts'`).
   - **Performance**: Based on the benchmark results, `.endsWith()` executed at approximately 12.3 million operations per second.

2. **.includes()**:
   - **Purpose**: This method determines whether a string contains a specified substring. In this case, it checks if `stringToCheck` contains the substring `string` (i.e., `'test.ts'`).
   - **Performance**: The benchmark results show that `.includes()` executed at around 9.3 million operations per second.

### Pros and Cons

#### .endsWith()
- **Pros**:
  - More efficient for its specific purpose of checking the end of a string, leading to higher execution speed.
  - Simple and straightforward for validation of string endings, making it an ideal choice for filename checks.
- **Cons**:
  - Limited functionality: It only checks the end of the string and cannot be used for checking the presence of substrings elsewhere in the string.

#### .includes()
- **Pros**:
  - More versatile than `.endsWith()`, as it can check for the presence of the substring anywhere within the string.
  - Can be used in scenarios beyond filenames, such as content searching within larger strings.
- **Cons**:
  - Slower performance in this specific benchmark scenario, potentially due to its more general nature of searching through the entire string rather than just examining the end.

### Alternative Approaches

1. **.substring() or .slice()**:
   - Instead of using `.endsWith()`, one could manually slice the string and compare it with the specified substring. This could add complexity and likely not perform as well as the native method.

2. **Regular Expressions**:
   - Using regular expressions (e.g., `/test\.ts$/`) can achieve similar results to both methods. However, regex can introduce additional overhead and complexity compared to the simpler string methods.

3. **Performance Considerations**:
   - The choice between these methods would depend on the use case. If only checking for the end of a string, `.endsWith()` is preferred for performance. If searching for a substring is needed, `.includes()` is the better choice, despite being slower in this benchmark.

### Conclusion

The choice of string methods in JavaScript can significantly affect performance, as demonstrated in this benchmark between `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`. While both methods have their unique strengths and weaknesses, selecting the appropriate method based on the specific use case can lead to improved efficiency in code execution.

Related benchmarks:

endsWith vs includes test file names 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: one year 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 gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):