Benchmark: String.indexOf vs Array split and includes

Script Preparation code:

var str = "asdfgdf,gdf,foobar,sdfs,dfasdf";

Tests:

string.indexOf()
var res = str.indexOf("foobar");
array split and includes
var res = str.split(",").includes("foobar");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string.indexOf()
array split and includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches for finding a substring within a string:

1. `string.indexOf()`
2. `array split and includes`

In the first approach, `string.indexOf()` is used to search for a specific substring ("foobar") within the string "asdfgdf,gdf,foobar,sdfs,dfasdf". This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the substring if found, or -1 otherwise.

The second approach uses the `split()` method to split the original string into an array of substrings using commas as separators. It then uses the `includes()` method to check if "foobar" is included in the resulting array.

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, we have two main options being compared:

A) `string.indexOf()`: a simple and efficient approach that's widely supported by JavaScript engines.
B) `array split and includes`: an alternative approach that uses more operations (splitting and checking membership) to achieve the same result as `indexOf()`.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

A) `string.indexOf()`:

Pros:

* Fast and efficient
* Widely supported by most JavaScript engines
* Simple to implement

Cons:

* Only searches for the first occurrence of the substring
* May not be suitable for large strings or datasets

B) `array split and includes`:

Pros:

* Can find all occurrences of a substring (not just the first one)
* May be useful in certain scenarios where `indexOf()` is not sufficient

Cons:

* Requires more operations than `indexOf()`, making it potentially slower
* More complex implementation

**Library/External Functionality**

In this benchmark, we don't see any explicit libraries or external functions being used. However, it's worth noting that the use of `includes()` method might be specific to some JavaScript engines (e.g., Chrome).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to finding a substring within a string, here are a few more:

* Using regular expressions (`RegExp` objects): This approach can be both faster and more flexible than `indexOf()`, but may also have a steeper learning curve.
* Using string manipulation techniques (e.g., indexing, slicing, or using `substr()`/`substring()` methods): These approaches might be slower than `indexOf()`, but could provide more control over the search process.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not directly comparable to `string.indexOf()` and `array split and includes` without additional context.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string.indexOf()	9578982.0 Ops/sec
array split and includes	2814887.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String.indexOf vs Array split and includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string.indexOf() vs array split and includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string.indexOf()

array split and 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):