Benchmark: startsWith vs includes()

Tests:

test1
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.includes("https://firebase")
test2
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing" str.startsWith("https://firebase")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two common string methods: `includes()` and `startsWith()`. The test case uses a fixed string `"https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"` to compare the execution times of these two methods.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`includes()`**: This method checks if a specified value (in this case, `"https://firebase"`) is present in the original string.
2. **`startsWith()`**: This method checks if the original string starts with a specified value (also `"https://firebase"`).

**Pros and Cons**

*   `includes()`: Pros:
    *   More flexible, as it can be used to check for any substring within the original string.
    *   Can be used with regular expressions to perform more complex searches.
Cons:
    *   Slower than `startsWith()` due to the additional iteration required to find the matching substring.
*   `startsWith()`: Pros:
    *   Faster, as it only requires a single character check at the beginning of the string.
    *   More straightforward and efficient for simple string matching tasks.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark tests explicitly use any libraries. However, if they did, some popular JavaScript string manipulation libraries include:

*   Lodash: Provides various utility functions for strings, including `includes()` and `startsWith()`.
*   String.prototype: Built-in methods for manipulating strings in JavaScript, such as `includes()` and `startsWith()`.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark tests utilize special JavaScript features or syntax. The test cases are straightforward and focus on comparing the performance of two basic string methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark using MeasureThat.net, you could consider adding more options, such as:

*   `endsWith()`: Measures the performance difference between this method and the others.
*   `localeCompare()`: Compares two strings according to their locale-specific collation rules.
*   Regular expressions: Tests the performance of different regular expression patterns for string matching.

Keep in mind that each alternative would require a new benchmark definition, test case, and execution results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	133646776.0 Ops/sec
test2	38299920.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

startsWith vs includes() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

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):