Benchmark: equals-vs-includes

Script Preparation code:

var path = '/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:accountEnquiry'

Tests:

equals-not-match
path == '/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:creditTransfer'
includes-not-match
path.includes('creditTransfer')
equals-match
path == '/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:accountEnquiry'
includes-match
path.includes('accountEnquiry')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
equals-not-match
includes-not-match
equals-match
includes-match

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 provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using `===` (triple equals) for equality checks versus using `includes()` for substring searches in JavaScript strings. The test cases compare two different URLs, each containing a string that includes a target string ("creditTransfer" or "accountEnquiry").

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up the path variable to invoke a service:
```javascript
var path = '/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:accountEnquiry';
```
This suggests that the benchmark is using a web framework or library that allows invoking services or APIs. The specific details of this setup are not relevant to the performance comparison being measured.

**Test Cases**

The test cases define four different scenarios:

1. `equals-not-match`: Checks if `path` does not equal `/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:creditTransfer`.
2. `includes-not-match`: Checks if `path.includes('creditTransfer')`.
3. `equals-match`: Checks if `path` equals `/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:accountEnquiry`.
4. `includes-match`: Checks if `path.includes('accountEnquiry')`.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses the `includes()` method, which is a standard JavaScript method introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This suggests that the test is verifying that the `includes()` method performs correctly on strings.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Using `===` for equality checks (`path == '/invoke/jago.bifast.provider.services:creditTransfer'`)
* Using `includes()` for substring searches (`path.includes('creditTransfer')`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Using `===` has some advantages:

* It provides a clear and unambiguous way to check if two values are equal.
* It can be more efficient than using `includes()` because it avoids the overhead of searching for a substring.

However, using `===` also has some drawbacks:

* If the operands are not numbers or strings, `===` may throw an error or return unexpected results.
* Using `===` can lead to slower performance compared to using `includes()` on certain browsers and JavaScript engines.

Using `includes()` has some advantages:

* It is more flexible than `===` because it allows searching for any substring within the string.
* It provides better support for internationalization and globalization.

However, using `includes()` also has some drawbacks:

* It may be slower than `===` on certain browsers or JavaScript engines.
* It can lead to less predictable results if the search string is not a valid substring of the original string.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also includes information about the device platform, operating system, and browser version for each test result. This suggests that the benchmark wants to provide a more comprehensive view of the performance differences across different environments.

As an alternative to using `===` or `includes()`, developers can use other methods such as:

* Using regular expressions (`RegExp.test()` or `RegExp.exec()`)
* Implementing custom string comparison functions
* Using third-party libraries that provide optimized string comparison functions

It's worth noting that the choice of method ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
equals-not-match	30738294.0 Ops/sec
includes-not-match	30759242.0 Ops/sec
equals-match	30871644.0 Ops/sec
includes-match	30538364.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

equals-vs-includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: equals-not-match vs includes-not-match vs equals-match vs includes-match

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

equals-not-match

includes-not-match

equals-match

includes-match

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):