Benchmark: location.hostname vs document.URL / startsWith vs include

Tests:

URL.includes
document.URL.includes("www.measurethat.")
location.hostname.startsWith
const domain = document.location.hostname domain.startsWith("www.measurethat.")
URL.startsWith
document.URL.startsWith("https://www.measurethat.")
location.hostname.includes
const domain = document.location.hostname domain.includes("www.measurethat.")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
URL.includes
location.hostname.startsWith
URL.startsWith
location.hostname.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/99.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
URL.includes	6086306.5 Ops/sec
location.hostname.startsWith	1759486.8 Ops/sec
URL.startsWith	4205296.0 Ops/sec
location.hostname.includes	1971020.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON defines two test cases:

1. URL.includes
2. location.hostname.startsWith
3. URL.startsWith
4. location.hostname.includes

These tests compare different approaches to check if a string contains or starts with a certain substring.

**Test Case 1: URL.includes**

This test case checks the performance of the `includes()` method on the `document.URL` property.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Pros:** The `includes()` method is relatively efficient, as it uses a simple string search algorithm.
* **Cons:** It may be slower than other methods if the input strings are very large or complex.

**Test Case 2: location.hostname.startsWith**

This test case checks the performance of the `startsWith()` method on the `location.hostname` property.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Pros:** The `startsWith()` method is more efficient than `includes()`, especially for shorter prefixes.
* **Cons:** It may not be suitable if you need to check for multiple prefix matches or if the input strings are very large or complex.

**Test Case 3: URL.startsWith**

This test case checks the performance of the `startsWith()` method on the `document.URL` property.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Pros:** Similar to `location.hostname.startsWith`, this method is more efficient than `includes()`.
* **Cons:** It may not be suitable if you need to check for multiple prefix matches or if the input strings are very large or complex.

**Test Case 4: location.hostname.includes**

This test case checks the performance of the `includes()` method on the `location.hostname` property, which is similar to Test Case 1 but uses a different string property.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Pros:** Similar to Test Case 1, this method is relatively efficient.
* **Cons:** The results may be affected by the differences between `document.URL` and `location.hostname`.

**Library Usage**

The tests use various built-in JavaScript properties and methods:

* `document.URL`: returns the current URL of the page.
* `location.hostname`: returns the hostname of the current domain (e.g., "www.measurethat.net").
* `startsWith()`: checks if a string starts with a certain prefix.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the tests rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's built-in to the language. However, it's worth noting that the test results may be affected by factors like browser-specific optimizations, caching, or the specific input strings used in each case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using regular expressions (e.g., `new RegExp('www.measurethat\\.net').test(document.URL)`): This method can be more efficient for certain use cases but may be slower overall.
* Implementing custom string search algorithms: You could write your own algorithm to compare strings, which might offer better performance in specific scenarios.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional expertise or optimization techniques to achieve the best results.

Related benchmarks:

location.hostname vs document.URL / startsWith vs include (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: URL.includes vs location.hostname.startsWith vs URL.startsWith vs location.hostname.includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

URL.includes

location.hostname.startsWith

URL.startsWith

location.hostname.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):