Benchmark: startsWith vs inlcudes v2

Tests:

startsWith
const str = "Прицеп полуприцеп"; str.startsWith("Прицеп");
includes
const str = "Прицеп полуприцеп"; str.includes("полупр");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
startsWith
includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.27 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
startsWith	81803896.0 Ops/sec
includes	42311296.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two JavaScript methods: `startsWith` and `includes`. Both methods are used to check if a string starts with a certain substring.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. `startsWith`
2. `includes`

These two methods are part of the JavaScript String prototype and are widely supported by most modern browsers.

**Pros and Cons**

* `startsWith`:
	+ Pros: More efficient and faster for short strings or when the search substring is shorter than the original string.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for searching substrings that are equal in length to the original string, as it may return false positives.
* `includes`:
	+ Pros: Suitable for searching substrings of any length, even if they're longer than the original string. It's also more flexible and can handle Unicode characters.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `startsWith` for very short strings or when the search substring is shorter than the original string.

**Library Usage**

There are no explicit libraries used in this benchmark. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine being tested (e.g., V8) uses some internal libraries or optimized implementations of these methods.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to optimize string searching, you might consider using:

1. RegEx (Regular Expressions): More powerful and flexible, but also slower due to the complexity of the regular expression engine.
2. String manipulation libraries like UglifyJS or String.prototype.extend: Can provide faster implementations, but may add extra overhead due to the library's complexity.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be necessary for most use cases, and `startsWith` and `includes` are usually sufficient and efficient enough.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show the execution rate per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case. In this case:

* `startsWith`: 81,403,896 executions/second
* `includes`: 42,311,296 executions/second

This suggests that `startsWith` is slightly faster than `includes`. However, the actual performance difference may vary depending on the specific use case and input data.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful insight into the performance characteristics of two commonly used JavaScript string methods.

Related benchmarks:

startsWith vs inlcudes v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: startsWith vs includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

startsWith

includes

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):