Benchmark: Javascript string.endsWith vs string.slice and tripple equal (one char)

Script Preparation code:

const value = "douche nation"
const ending = "tion"

function compareEndsWith(val, comparator) {
  return val.endsWith(comparator)
}
function compareSliceMethod(val, comparator) {
  const thingToCompare = val.slice(-1)
  return thingToCompare === comparator
}

Tests:

endWith
const value = "douche nation" const ending = "n" compareEndsWith(value, ending)
slice
const value = "douche nation" const ending = "n" compareSliceMethod(value, ending)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
endWith
slice

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'd be happy to help explain the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches for checking if a string ends with a certain character: `endsWith` and `slice()` + `===`. The test case uses only built-in JavaScript functions, without any external libraries or special features.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options compared in this benchmark:

1. **`endsWith`**: This function takes two arguments: the string to check, and the character to search for at the end of the string. It returns a boolean value indicating whether the character is found at the end of the string.
2. **`slice()` + `===`**: This approach uses the `slice()` method to extract the last character of the string, and then compares it with the expected character using the `===` operator.

**Pros and Cons**

**`endsWith`**:

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Less likely to cause performance issues due to the simplicity of the operation

Cons:

* May be slower than the alternative approach on some browsers or JavaScript engines, as it involves a function call overhead

**`slice()` + `===`**:

Pros:

* Can be faster than `endsWith` on some browsers or JavaScript engines, especially for longer strings
* Allows for better control over the performance of the operation

Cons:

* Less readable code due to the use of an additional method and operator
* May cause performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., using a large slice size)

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no external library used. The `slice()` function is part of the built-in JavaScript API.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard JavaScript functions and operators.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser Support**: Both approaches should work in most modern browsers, but it's essential to ensure that they are compatible with the target audience.
* **String Length**: The performance difference between `endsWith` and `slice()` + `===` may be more noticeable for longer strings. This benchmark measures both cases to provide a comprehensive understanding of the trade-offs.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could include:

1. Using regular expressions (`RegExp.test()`) to check if the string ends with a certain pattern.
2. Implementing a custom function using bitwise operations (e.g., `str.charCodeAt(str.length - 1) === charCodeAt`) for a potential performance boost on some browsers or JavaScript engines.

However, these alternatives are less common and may not be as widely supported or efficient as `endsWith` and `slice()` + `===`.

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/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
endWith	34449516.0 Ops/sec
slice	33287678.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Javascript string.endsWith vs string.slice and tripple equal (one char) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: endWith vs slice

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

endWith

slice

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):