Benchmark: String.includes vs. multiple String.endsWith

Script Preparation code:

var string = "This is a moderately-sized string that ends with Hello World!";

Tests:

String.includes
string.includes("World");
Multiple String.endsWith
string.endsWith("World") || string.endsWith("World!");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String.includes
Multiple String.endsWith

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. It has three main sections:

1. **Name**: The name of the benchmark, which is "String.includes vs. multiple String.endsWith".
2. **Description**: A brief description of the benchmark, which asks if it's faster to test multiple known setups from the end of a string for finding a specific substring ("World") in a moderately-sized string.
3. **Script Preparation Code**: The code that prepares the script before running the benchmark. In this case, it creates a variable `string` with a moderately-sized string that ends with "Hello World!".

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark has two individual test cases:

1. **String.includes**: Tests the performance of the `includes()` method on the `string` variable.
2. **Multiple String.endsWith**: Tests the performance of checking if the `string` variable ends with "World" or "World!" using multiple calls to the `endsWith()` method.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares two different approaches:

1. **Single `includes()` call**: Tests the performance of a single call to `includes()` on the entire string.
2. **Multiple `endsWith()` checks**: Tests the performance of checking if the string ends with "World" or "World!" using multiple calls to `endsWith()`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Single `includes()` call**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward approach that directly addresses the problem.
	+ Cons: May lead to unnecessary computations for other parts of the code.
* **Multiple `endsWith()` checks**:
	+ Pros: Can potentially take advantage of compiler optimizations or caching mechanisms.
	+ Cons: More complex and may introduce additional overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* The specific use case and requirements of your application.
* The performance characteristics of your target browser(s) and platform(s).
* Any potential security implications of exposing sensitive data through multiple `endsWith()` checks.

**JavaScript Features and Syntax**

The benchmark uses standard JavaScript features:

* The `includes()` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2015).
* The `endsWith()` method (not a standard method, but implemented by modern browsers).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used beyond these standard methods.

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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String.includes	15792320.0 Ops/sec
Multiple String.endsWith	6630187.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String.includes vs. multiple String.endsWith (version: 0)

If what you're looking for is expected to be at the end of a string, is it faster to test multiple known setups from the end of the string?

Comparing performance of: String.includes vs Multiple String.endsWith

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String.includes

Multiple String.endsWith

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):