Benchmark: Test For Performance

Tests:

Test1
let urls = ['/test/test', '/one/two']; let arg = '/test'; let arg1 = '/test/test'; if(urls.some(url => url.indexOf(arg) !== -1)) { console.log('excluded'); }
Test2
let urls = ['/test/test', '/one/two']; let arg = '/test'; let arg1 = '/test/test'; if(urls.includes(arg1)) { console.log('excluded'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `some()` method versus the `includes()` method for searching a string within an array of URLs.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Test 1**: This test case uses the `some()` method to search for the presence of a URL in the `urls` array. The code is as follows:
```javascript
let urls = ['/test/test', '/one/two'];
let arg = '/test';
let arg1 = '/test/test';

if (urls.some(url => url.indexOf(arg) !== -1)) {
  console.log('excluded');
}
```
2. **Test 2**: This test case uses the `includes()` method to search for the presence of a URL in the `urls` array. The code is as follows:
```javascript
let urls = ['/test/test', '/one/two'];
let arg = '/test';
let arg1 = '/test/test';

if (urls.includes(arg1)) {
  console.log('excluded');
}
```
**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

* Using `some()` versus `includes()`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Some():**

Pros:

* More flexible, as it can be used with arrays and other data structures
* Can be used to check for any truthy value in an array

Cons:

* Generally slower than `includes()`, especially for large datasets
* May have performance issues due to the way it iterates over the array

**Includes():**

Pros:

* Faster than `some()`, as it uses a linear search algorithm
* More concise and readable, as it directly checks for the presence of a value in an array

Cons:

* Less flexible, as it only works with arrays
* May not be suitable for checking multiple conditions or complex logic

**Library/Utility Functions**

In both test cases, the `indexOf()` method is used within the `some()` and `includes()` functions. The `indexOf()` method returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value in an array. This method can throw an error if the value is not found.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Neither of the test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to `some()` and `includes()`, other alternatives for searching a string within an array could include:

* Using a regular expression with the `RegExp.prototype.test()` method
* Using the `Array.prototype.filter()` method with a callback function
* Using the `Array.prototype.includes()` method (although this is not exactly equivalent to using `some()` or `includes()`)

However, for small datasets and simple use cases, `some()` and `includes()` are likely to be the most efficient and readable choices.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.212 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	239418.2 Ops/sec
Test2	239722.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test For Performance (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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