Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes in string

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.'

Tests:

IndexOf
string.indexOf('tempor')
Includes
string.includes('tempor')

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 673 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 555 runs

IndexOf

26.9M/s

Includes

26.7M/s

View exact numbers

✓ IndexOf: 26,867,106 ops/sec
• Includes: 26,749,270 ops/sec

Firefox 62 runs

IndexOf

1393.6M/s

Includes

1247.8M/s

Fastest: IndexOf (1.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ IndexOf: 1,393,574,656 ops/sec
• Includes: 1,247,765,504 ops/sec

Safari 24 runs

IndexOf

31.0M/s

Includes

10.9M/s

Fastest: IndexOf (2.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ IndexOf: 31,021,440 ops/sec
• Includes: 10,905,690 ops/sec

Other 6 runs

Includes

19.2M/s

IndexOf

18.9M/s

View exact numbers

✓ Includes: 19,188,544 ops/sec
• IndexOf: 18,926,324 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Includes

77.4M/s

IndexOf

73.6M/s

View exact numbers

✓ Includes: 77,392,992 ops/sec
• IndexOf: 73,626,792 ops/sec

Safari 10 runs

IndexOf

215.7M/s

Includes

12.5M/s

Fastest: IndexOf (17.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ IndexOf: 215,685,648 ops/sec
• Includes: 12,474,408 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

IndexOf

96.4M/s

Includes

93.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ IndexOf	96,375,992 Ops/sec
Includes	93,135,560 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 benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. `string.indexOf('tempor')` (Test Name: "IndexOf")
2. `string.includes('tempor')` (Test Name: "Includes")

These two functions are being compared, which suggests a performance comparison between the two methods of searching for a specific substring within a string.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* `indexOf()`: The traditional method of finding the index of a substring within a string.
* `includes()`: A newer method introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES11), which provides a more concise and readable way to check if a string includes a certain value.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`indexOf()`**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported across older browsers, easy to implement.
	+ Cons: Can be slower and less efficient than `includes()`, as it has to iterate through the entire string to find the match.
* **`includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Faster and more efficient than `indexOf()`, as it can stop searching as soon as it finds a match.
	+ Cons: Requires ECMAScript 2019 (ES11) support, may not be compatible with older browsers.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is set up to measure the performance of these two methods in different scenarios. The test string is designed to contain a relatively common word (`"tempor"`), which should help to isolate the differences between the two methods.

**Library and Purpose**

No specific libraries are mentioned in the JSON definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may use internal optimizations or caching mechanisms that could impact the performance of these tests.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two simple string methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in testing other string methods, you might consider adding additional test cases, such as:

* Using `includes()` with a regex pattern
* Comparing `startsWith()`, `endsWith()`, and `indexOf()` methods
* Testing different string encodings or character sets

However, these alternatives are not part of the provided JSON benchmark definition.

Overall, this benchmark is designed to help developers understand the performance differences between traditional `indexOf()` and newer `includes()` methods in JavaScript.

IndexOf vs Includes in string (version: 0)

Banana

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 673 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 555 runs

Firefox 62 runs

Safari 24 runs

Other 6 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Safari 10 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

IndexOf vs Includes in string (version: 0)

Banana

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 673 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 555 runs

Firefox 62 runs

Safari 24 runs

Other 6 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Safari 10 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes`