Benchmark: indexOf vs includes 12

Tests:

indexOf
'ani demwkl mdeklw animation'.indexOf('animation') >= 0
includes
'ani demwkl mdeklw animation'.includes('animation')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
includes

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore the JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases:

1. `indexOf`
2. `includes`

Both tests aim to measure the performance difference between using the `indexOf()` method and the `includes()` method in JavaScript.

**Options compared:**

In this case, the options being compared are:

* `indexOf()`: a string searching algorithm that returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value.
* `includes()`: a newer string searching algorithm introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that returns a boolean indicating whether a specified value is present in the string.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **indexOf():**
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported across older browsers and versions.
		- Often considered more efficient due to its simple implementation.
	+ Cons:
		- Returns -1 if the value is not found, which can be misleading in some cases.
		- May perform a linear search, leading to slower performance for large strings.
* `includes():`
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and intuitive than `indexOf()`.
		- Returns a boolean indicating whether the value is present, making it more accurate.
	+ Cons:
		- Less widely supported across older browsers and versions.
		- May be slower due to its implementation.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. The tests are focused on comparing the performance of `indexOf()` and `includes()` methods in native JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `includes()` method was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which may affect its availability across older browsers and versions.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative string searching methods, here are a few options:

* **String.prototype.indexOf() with an iterator**: Some older browsers support using iterators to optimize the search process. This approach can be faster but is less widely supported.
* **Regular expressions**: Using regular expressions can provide more flexibility and accuracy when searching for patterns in strings. However, they can also introduce performance overhead due to the complexity of the pattern matching algorithm.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between `indexOf()` and `includes()`. It helps developers understand the trade-offs between these two methods in terms of performance, readability, and accuracy.

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
indexOf	1037492544.0 Ops/sec
includes	1038223936.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs includes 12 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

includes

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):