Benchmark: Performance of includes vs startsWith

Tests:

includes (start of input)
const str = "https://www.google.com/this/is/a/long/url/and/we/are/going/to/try/to/find/the/start/of/it" str.includes("https")
includes (end of input)
const str = "https://www.google.com/this/is/a/long/url/and/we/are/going/to/try/to/find/the/end-of-it" str.includes("end-of-it")
startsWith (start of input)
const str = "https://www.google.com/this/is/a/long/url/and/we/are/going/to/try/to/find/the/start/of/it" str.startsWith("https")
startsWith (end of input)
const str = "https://www.google.com/this/is/a/long/url/and/we/are/going/to/try/to/find/the/end-of-it" str.startsWith("end-of-it")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes (start of input)
includes (end of input)
startsWith (start of input)
startsWith (end of input)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test compares the performance of two string comparison methods: `includes` and `startsWith`. The test consists of four individual test cases, each with its own input string.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **includes**: This method checks if a specified value (in this case, "https") is present at the start of the input string.
2. **startsWith**: This method checks if a specified value (in this case, "https") is equal to the start of the input string.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **includes**:
    *   Pros: Can be more efficient than `startsWith` for certain use cases, as it only needs to check the first few characters of the string.
    *   Cons: May not be suitable for all use cases, as it can lead to slower performance if the input string is very long and the desired substring is not at the start.
*   **startsWith**:
    *   Pros: Can provide more accurate results when checking if a specific value is present at the start of the input string. It's also more intuitive for some developers.
    *   Cons: May be slower than `includes` in certain cases, especially when dealing with very long input strings.

**Library Usage**

The test uses no external libraries or dependencies. The JavaScript methods being compared (`includes`, `startsWith`) are built-in to the language and do not require any additional imports or setup.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this test case. It only leverages the standard string comparison methods provided by the language.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare strings in a different way, here are some alternative approaches:

*   **indexOf()**: This method returns the index of the specified value within the input string. If the value is not found, it returns -1.
*   **localeCompare()**: This method compares two strings according to the rules of the current locale. It's useful for comparing strings in a culturally-aware manner.

In conclusion, the MeasureThat.net benchmark test case provides a simple and effective way to compare the performance of `includes` and `startsWith`. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which method to use depending on their specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes (start of input)	183523376.0 Ops/sec
includes (end of input)	178740768.0 Ops/sec
startsWith (start of input)	97360224.0 Ops/sec
startsWith (end of input)	167616240.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Performance of includes vs startsWith (version: 0)

Test performance of includes vs startsWith

Comparing performance of: includes (start of input) vs includes (end of input) vs startsWith (start of input) vs startsWith (end of input)

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes (start of input)

includes (end of input)

startsWith (start of input)

startsWith (end of input)

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):