Benchmark: startswith vs includes v2

Tests:

includes
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing-a-bunch-of-text-etc asdfghjkl" str.includes("https://firebase")
startsWith
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing-a-bunch-of-text-etc asdfghjkl" str.startsWith("https://firebase")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
startsWith

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 13; M2012K11AG) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 104 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	1264390144.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	19285998.0 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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two string methods: `includes` and `startsWith`. The test cases are designed to measure which method is faster for searching a specific substring within a larger string.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`str.includes("https://firebase")`**: This method checks if the string `str` contains the specified substring `"https://firebase"`.
2. **`str.startsWith("https://firebase")`**: This method checks if the string `str` starts with the specified substring `"https://firebase"`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`includes()`**:
	* Pros: More flexible, can be used to search for any substring within the string, not just a fixed-length prefix.
	* Cons: May perform more overhead due to the algorithm's complexity, potentially leading to slower performance.
2. **`startsWith()`**:
	* Pros: Smaller overhead compared to `includes()`, as it only needs to check the first character of the string.
	* Cons: Less flexible than `includes()`, only suitable for searching a fixed-length prefix.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, some browsers may use internal libraries or optimized implementations of these methods that are not explicitly referenced here.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two built-in string methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Regular Expressions (Regex)**: Using regular expressions can provide more flexibility and power, but may also introduce additional overhead.
2. **String.search()**: This method is similar to `includes()` but returns an index value instead of a boolean result.

To experiment with these alternatives, you could modify the benchmark definition to include a third test case that uses either Regex or `String.search()`. MeasureThat.net allows you to define custom benchmark definitions and scripts, so feel free to get creative!

Related benchmarks:

startswith vs includes v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs startsWith

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

startsWith

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):