Benchmark: confronto indexof substr

Script Preparation code:

var x = 'pippo';

Tests:

uno
return x.indexOf('pi') > -1
due
return x.substr(0,2) == 'pi'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
uno
due

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 explain the benchmark and its options.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two different approaches for searching a substring within a string: `indexOf` and `substr`.

**Options compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **`indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value in the string. If the value is not found, it returns -1.
2. **`substr()`**: This method extracts a section of characters from the original string. In this case, `substr(0, 2)` extracts the first two characters.

**Pros and Cons**

* `indexOf()`: Pros:
	+ More straightforward to use for simple substring searches
	+ Less CPU-intensive compared to `substr`
Cons:
	+ May not be as efficient for large strings or complex searches
* `substr()`: Pros:
	+ Can be more efficient than `indexOf()` for large strings or complex searches, as it doesn't require iterating over the entire string
Cons:
	+ More verbose and error-prone to use correctly

**Library usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. Both `indexOf()` and `substr()` are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

None mentioned.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other approaches, some alternatives could be:

* Using regular expressions (`RegExp`)
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js
* Implementing a custom search algorithm

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely have different trade-offs and performance characteristics compared to the built-in `indexOf()` and `substr()` methods.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code is simply assigning a string value `x` with the content `"pippo"`.

The HTML preparation code is empty, which suggests that this benchmark doesn't require any specific HTML structure or rendering.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
uno	16132229.0 Ops/sec
due	14344778.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

confronto indexof substr (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: uno vs due

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

uno

due

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):