Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes in string 333

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('tempor123') > -1
Includes
string.includes('tempor123')

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: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:146.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/146.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 146 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

IndexOf

1562.9M/s

Includes

1561.9M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ IndexOf	1,562,948,352 Ops/sec
Includes	1,561,895,552 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The test aims to measure and compare the performance of two string comparison methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. The focus is on determining which method is faster when searching for a specific substring within a large string.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`string.indexOf('tempor123') > -1`**: This uses the `indexOf` method, which returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value (in this case, 'tempor123'), or -1 if it's not found.
2. **`string.includes('tempor123')`**: This uses the `includes` method, which returns a boolean value indicating whether the string includes the specified value ('tempor123').

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`indexOf` Method:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Can be more efficient when searching for exact matches.
        *   Returns an index value immediately if found.
    *   Cons:
        *   May perform poorly if not optimized (e.g., if the string is large or has many non-matching characters).
*   **`includes` Method:**
    *   Pros:
        *   More readable and expressive code.
        *   Handles edge cases like empty strings more elegantly.
    *   Cons:
        *   May be slower than `indexOf` due to the overhead of searching for substring presence.

**Library**

The test uses the built-in JavaScript `String.prototype.indexOf()` and `String.prototype.includes()` methods, which are part of the ECMAScript standard. These methods are implemented by most modern browsers and Node.js environments.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None in this case)**

There's no use of special JavaScript features or syntax like async/await, promises, or ES6+ features that require specific browser support.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to benchmarking string comparison performance include:

*   Using a different substring search algorithm (e.g., Boyer-Moore or Knuth-Morris-Pratt).
*   Testing with different types of strings (e.g., numbers, dates, regex patterns).
*   Evaluating the impact of specific optimization techniques on string comparison performance (e.g., caching results, using memoization).

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might require additional setup and configuration to ensure accurate results.

IndexOf vs Includes in string 333 (version: 0)

Banana 333

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

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 333 (version: 0)

Banana 333

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

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`