Benchmark: startswith vs includes vs equality

Tests:

includes
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.includes("firebase")
startsWith
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.startsWith("https://firebase")
equality
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str === "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
startsWith
equality

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark data and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by three test cases: `includes`, `startsWith`, and `equality`. These test cases are designed to measure the performance of a JavaScript engine when performing specific string operations.

**Test Cases**

1. **`includes`**: The first test case checks if a given string (`str`) includes another substring ("firebase"). This operation is used to find if a certain part of a string exists within the entire string.
2. **`startsWith`**: The second test case checks if a given string (`str`) starts with another substring ("https://firebase"). This operation is used to determine if a string begins with a specific sequence of characters.
3. **`equality`**: The third test case checks if two strings are equal (`"https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"` and `"https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"`). This operation is used to verify that two strings have the same value.

**Libraries and Features**

None of the provided benchmark cases explicitly use any external libraries or features. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might optimize certain string operations using internal library functions or heuristics.

**String Operations**

Here's a brief explanation of each string operation:

* `includes`: This operation uses a linear search algorithm to find if the specified substring exists within the entire string.
* `startsWith`: This operation uses a simple loop to check if the string starts with the specified prefix. It's generally faster than `includes` because it only requires checking the first characters of the string.
* `equality`: This operation is simple and straightforward, as it only involves comparing two strings using the equality operator (`===`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **`includes`**: Pros: widely supported by most JavaScript engines. Cons: can be slower than `startsWith` because it uses a linear search algorithm.
* **`startsWith`**: Pros: generally faster than `includes` because it only requires checking the first characters of the string. Cons: might not work correctly for Unicode strings or strings with special characters.
* **`equality`**: Pros: simple and straightforward, as it only involves comparing two strings using the equality operator (`===`). Cons: doesn't provide any additional functionality beyond simple string comparison.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches to these string operations include:

* Using regular expressions for `includes` or `startsWith`, which can be faster but might add complexity.
* Optimizing `includes` or `startsWith` using internal library functions or heuristics, which might improve performance but could also introduce compatibility issues.
* Using a different data structure, such as an array of strings, to optimize string operations.

Overall, the benchmark is designed to measure the performance of a JavaScript engine when performing simple string operations. The results can provide insights into how different engines handle these operations and help identify potential optimization opportunities.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	1020287872.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	26315658.0 Ops/sec
equality	1019698560.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

startswith vs includes vs equality (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith vs equality

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

startsWith

equality

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):