Benchmark: endsWith vs Includes

Script Preparation code:

var string = "test";
var stringToCheck = "haha_lol_test";

var result = null;

Tests:

using endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
using includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using endsWith
using 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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website `MeasureThat.net` allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we have a simple benchmark that tests two string methods: `endsWith` and `includes`. The benchmark is defined as:

* A string variable `string` with the value `"test"`.
* Another string variable `stringToCheck` with the value `"haha_lol_test"`.
* An empty result variable `result`.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases in this benchmark:

1. **using endsWith**: This test case uses the `endsWith` method to check if `stringToCheck` starts with `string`. The benchmark definition is:
```
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
```
2. **using includes**: This test case uses the `includes` method to check if `stringToCheck` contains `string`. The benchmark definition is:
```
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);
```
**Comparison of endsWith and includes**

The two methods are being compared in terms of performance:

* `endsWith` is a method that checks if a string starts with another string.
* `includes` is a method that checks if a string contains another string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **endsWith**: This method is generally faster than `includes` because it uses a single pass through the string to check for the match. However, it's also less flexible since it only checks for exact matches at the beginning of the string.
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient
	+ Cons: Limited flexibility, may return false positives
* **includes**: This method is more flexible than `endsWith` because it can be used to search for substrings anywhere in the string. However, it's also slower due to its more complex implementation.
	+ Pros: Flexible, can be used for substring searches
	+ Cons: Slower, less efficient

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in this benchmark. Both `endsWith` and `includes` are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic string comparison methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare performance of other string comparison methods, some alternatives could include:

* Using a regular expression (RegEx) for substring matching
* Implementing a custom loop-based search function
* Using a library like `string-posex` or `fast-strings` which provide optimized string manipulation functions

Keep in mind that each alternative would likely have its own pros and cons, and the best choice would depend on the specific use case and requirements.

In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance of two built-in JavaScript methods: `endsWith` and `includes`. The results will help users understand which method is faster and more efficient for their specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/106.0.0.0 (Edition Yx GX 03)

Browser/OS: Opera 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using endsWith	2815959.2 Ops/sec
using includes	2775757.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

endsWith vs Includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using endsWith vs using includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using endsWith

using 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):