Benchmark: endsWith vs includes vs ===

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'car';
var stringToCheck = 'car';

var result = null;

Tests:

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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests three different approaches to check if a string ends with a specific suffix: `endsWith`, `.includes`, and `===` (strict equality).

**Options compared:**

1. **endsWith**: This method returns `true` if the string ends with the specified suffix.
2. **.includes**: This method returns `true` if the string includes the specified suffix, regardless of its position in the string.
3. **==**: This is a strict equality operator that checks if both strings are identical, including case and whitespace.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **endsWith**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient (typically 2-3 operations)
		+ Accurate for exact matching
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly with non-ASCII characters or Unicode normalization
		+ Can be slower than `.includes` if the string is very long
2. **.includes**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and accurate for non-exact matches (e.g., partial strings)
		+ Faster than `endsWith` for large strings
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than `endsWith` for exact matching
3. **==**: This is a strict equality operator that checks if both strings are identical, including case and whitespace.
	* Pros: None (it's not designed for string matching)
	* Cons:
		+ Slow due to the overhead of checking for equality (typically 5-6 operations)
		+ Inaccurate for non-ASCII characters or Unicode normalization

**Library usage:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript string methods and operators.

**Other alternatives:**

For testing string matching, other approaches could include:

1. Using regular expressions (e.g., `RegExp.test()` or `String.prototype.match()`)
2. Implementing a custom implementation using JavaScript's built-in `indexOf()` method
3. Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for optimized string matching

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity, overhead, or trade-offs in terms of performance and accuracy.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 13 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	5239750.5 Ops/sec
.includes	5269402.0 Ops/sec
===	5597770.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

endsWith vs includes vs === (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes vs ===

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

===

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):