Benchmark: k kajsldfjla - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

window.words = 'Hello to the new world i am excited that you are here bigword biggerword biggestword themostbiggestwordever cheese kitty mouse rat alkgjhasjfalskfdjalsjfllajdsfakaljsfdlajs'.split(' ');

Tests:

indexOf
words.indexOf('themostbiggestwordever')>=0
includes
words.includes('themostbiggestwordever')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple JavaScript expression that tests two string methods:

1. `words.indexOf('themostbiggestwordever') >= 0`
2. `words.includes('themostbiggestwordever')`

These expressions are used to search for the presence of a specific string within a large string array (`window.words`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes a global variable `window.words` with a long string that contains various words, including "themostbiggestwordever". This string is split into an array using the `split()` method.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Comparison of Options**

Two options are compared:

1. **indexOf**: Searches for the index of a specified character within the string array.
2. **includes**: Returns a boolean indicating whether a specified value is present in the string array.

**Pros and Cons**

* `indexOf`:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than `includes`, especially for large strings, since it returns an index instead of a boolean value.
	+ Cons: May return -1 if the character is not found, which can be slower than returning false from `includes`.
* `includes`:
	+ Pros: Simpler and more intuitive to use, with fewer potential pitfalls.
	+ Cons: Generally slower than `indexOf` for large strings.

**Library Usage**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS Features**

None mentioned.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark only tests the performance of these two string methods on a specific browser (Firefox 118) and device platform (Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15). It's essential to note that results may vary across different browsers, devices, and platforms.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives or want to test other JavaScript features, you can explore the following:

1. Other string methods: `includes`, `indexOf`, `lastIndexOf`, `charAt`, etc.
2. Array methods: `filter()`, `map()`, `reduce()`, etc.
3. DOM manipulation: `createElement`, `appendChild`, `removeChild`, etc.
4. Regular expressions: Using the `/regex/` syntax or `new RegExp()` constructor.

MeasureThat.net provides a simple and convenient way to benchmark specific JavaScript features, making it an excellent resource for comparing performance across different browsers and devices.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/118.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 118 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf	12455981.0 Ops/sec
includes	14929763.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

k kajsldfjla (version: 0)

k

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

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):