Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Includes vs indexOf
(version: 0)
Includes vs indexOf
Comparing performance of:
includes vs indexOf
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var text = 'jdkxshklhkhskhskshkjaFREDERICKBCDBKlkhdslkbsklbsjbjkd';
Tests:
includes
text.includes('FREDERICK');
indexOf
text.indexOf('FREDERICK') !== -1;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
includes
indexOf
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark test and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **What is being tested?** The benchmark tests two different approaches to search for a string within a given text: `includes` method vs `indexOf` method. **What are the options being compared?** Two options are being compared: 1. **Includes Method**: The `includes` method checks if a specified string exists within another string. It returns `true` if the string is found, and `false` otherwise. 2. **IndexOf Method**: The `indexOf` method searches for the first occurrence of a specified value in a string. It returns the index of the first match, or -1 if not found. **Pros and Cons:** Both methods have their own pros and cons: * **Includes Method**: + Pros: - Faster execution time - More concise code + Cons: - Can lead to performance issues with large strings - May return `true` for partial matches (e.g., "hello world") * **IndexOf Method**: + Pros: - Returns the exact index of the match, which can be useful in certain situations - More flexible for searching multiple occurrences + Cons: - Slower execution time compared to `includes` - May not return a meaningful result if the string is empty **Library and Purpose:** The `text` variable used in the benchmark is an example of a JavaScript string. The `includes` and `indexOf` methods are both part of the ECMAScript standard, which means they are widely supported across different browsers and environments. **Special JS Feature/Syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives:** Other alternatives to these two methods include: * Using regular expressions (e.g., `RegExp.test()`) for more complex string matching * Using a loop-based approach to iterate over the characters of the string * Utilizing libraries like Lodash (`_.includes()` or `_indexOf()`) for more functional programming-style string searching **Benchmark Preparation Code:** The script preparation code creates a sample string variable `text` with a specific value, which is used in both benchmark test cases. This ensures that the same text is being searched across both tests. **Individual Test Cases:** Each test case measures the execution time of either the `includes` or `indexOf` method on the same text string. By comparing these two results, we can see which approach performs better in terms of speed. In this benchmark, it appears that the `includes` method is faster than the `indexOf` method for searching a single occurrence of a string within a larger text. However, this may not always be the case, and other factors like device, browser, and system configuration can influence performance results.
Related benchmarks:
Js Search -String IndexOf vs Includes
IndexOf vs Includes on string
find vs includes vs indexof
.includes() vs indexOf() for single-character search in string
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?