Benchmark: .endsWith vs includes - cooasodosd

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'carfish';
var stringToCheck = 'carfish.play';
var equal = 'carfish';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);
equality check
result = string == equal;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.includes
equality check

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/116.0.1938.62

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	3084521.8 Ops/sec
.includes	2968299.2 Ops/sec
equality check	3213332.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing three different approaches to check if a string ends with another string:

1. `.endsWith()`
2. `.includes()`
3. A basic equality check `string == equal`

These three approaches are being compared to determine which one is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

* `.endsWith()` and `.includes()` are two built-in string methods in JavaScript that can be used to check if a string ends with another string.
* The third option, `string == equal`, is a simple equality check using the `==` operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `.endsWith()`
	* Pros: Specifically designed for checking if a string ends with another string, can be faster than other methods.
	* Cons: May not work as expected with non-English characters or edge cases (e.g., strings with Unicode characters).
2. `.includes()`
	* Pros: More general-purpose and works well with most characters, but might be slower for simple end-with checks.
	* Cons: May return false positives if the string is a prefix of another string.
3. `string == equal`
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported, works with most characters.
	* Cons: Can be slow, especially for large strings.

**Library Used**

None. This benchmark is using built-in JavaScript methods and operators.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

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

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is running on Chrome 116 on a Windows desktop device with a relatively high number of executions per second (321,3332.5). The results suggest that `.endsWith()` might be the fastest approach, but further testing would be needed to confirm.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives or additional optimizations, some approaches could include:

* Using regular expressions (`/string.$$/`) instead of built-in string methods.
* Optimizing the `string == equal` check using a technique like "string concatenation" (e.g., `string + '=' + equal`).
* Using more specialized libraries or engines that offer better performance for certain string operations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be universally applicable and may require further testing to validate their effectiveness.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs includes - cooasodosd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes vs equality check

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

equality check

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):