Benchmark: Includes vs. IndexOf

Script Preparation code:

var array = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", "g"]

Tests:

Includes()
if (array.includes("f") === true) {};
IndexOf()
if (array.indexOf("f") !== -1) {};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes()
IndexOf()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is tested:**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing the performance of two string comparison methods in JavaScript: `includes()` and `indexOf()`. The benchmark measures how many times each method can execute per second on a specific browser and device platform.

**Options compared:**

1. **Includes()**: This method checks if an element is present in a string using the `includes()` method.
2. **IndexOf()**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of a substring within a string, or -1 if not found.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Includes():**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable syntax.
		- Less prone to errors due to its simple logic.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than `IndexOf()` in some cases, as it uses a binary search algorithm internally.
		- Can lead to performance issues if used with very large strings or arrays.
* **IndexOf():**
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster and more efficient than `Includes()`, especially for larger strings or arrays.
		- Returns the actual index of the substring, which can be useful in some cases.
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and maintainable syntax compared to `Includes()`.

**Library used:**
None explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it is implied that the benchmark uses a JavaScript runtime environment that supports both `includes()` and `indexOf()` methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
The benchmark does not specifically use any advanced JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `includes()` and `indexOf()` methods. It only relies on basic JavaScript syntax to execute the test cases.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to compare other string comparison methods, such as:

* `startsWith()`, `endsWith()`, or `padEnd()`
* Regular expressions (`RegExp`)
* Using a loop with `indexOf()` and checking for -1
* Other libraries like Lodash or underscore.js

You would need to modify the benchmark definition JSON accordingly, creating new test cases that use these alternative methods.

**Additional considerations:**

When writing microbenchmarks like this one, consider the following:

* Keep the test cases simple and focused on the specific comparison method being tested.
* Use realistic input data and edge cases to ensure a comprehensive benchmarking result.
* Avoid using external dependencies or libraries unless absolutely necessary.
* Test on multiple browsers, devices, and platforms to ensure cross-platform compatibility.

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/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Includes()	8460754.0 Ops/sec
IndexOf()	6996793.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Includes vs. IndexOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes() vs IndexOf()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes()

IndexOf()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):