Benchmark: indexof vs benchmark in first letter

Tests:

Indexof
const data = "helloworldsisthebestworldofyoucanyousee?" let r = false if(data.startsWith('a') || data.startsWith('b') || data.startsWith('c') || data.startsWith('d') || data.startsWith('e') || data.startsWith('f') || data.startsWith('g')){ r = true }
includes
const data = "helloworldsisthebestworldofyoucanyousee?" let r = false if(['a','b','c','d','e','f','g'].includes(data[0])){ r = true }

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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if a character exists in a string: `indexof` (also known as `indexOf`) and `includes`. Both methods are used to determine whether the first letter of the input string is among a predefined set of characters (`'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'`).

**Options Compared**

The two options compared in this benchmark are:

1. **indexof (indexOf)**: This method searches for the index of the specified character within the string. If the character is found, it returns its index; otherwise, it returns -1.
2. **includes**: This method checks if a value exists in an array or object. In this case, it's used to check if the first letter of the input string (`data[0]`) is included in the predefined set of characters.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **indexof (indexOf)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Generally faster than includes because it uses a linear search.
        *   Can be more efficient for larger strings or sets.
    *   Cons:
        *   Returns the index of the character, not a boolean value indicating presence/absence.
        *   May return -1 if the character is not found, which can lead to incorrect results if used in a conditional statement.
*   **includes**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Returns a boolean value indicating whether the character exists in the set or not.
        *   Can be more readable and easier to understand than indexof, especially for developers familiar with it.
    *   Cons:
        *   Generally slower than indexof due to its array search mechanism.

**Library/Functionality Used**

In this benchmark, neither `indexof` nor `includes` uses a library; they are native JavaScript functions.

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

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing the performance of two simple methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark, you might also consider alternative approaches, such as:

*   Using a `switch` statement with string literals to check for character presence.
*   Creating a custom function that uses a lookup table or hash map to store precomputed results for common characters.
*   Utilizing web workers or parallel processing to run multiple iterations of the benchmark simultaneously.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach would likely have its own set of trade-offs and may not necessarily offer better performance than the original `indexof` vs. `includes` comparison.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/119.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Indexof	953892352.0 Ops/sec
includes	966536640.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

indexof vs benchmark in first letter (version: 0)

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):