Benchmark: .endsWith vs includes (2)

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'car';
var stringToCheck = 'abcdefghijkcar';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two methods in JavaScript: `string.endsWith()` and `string.includes()`. These methods are used to check if a string ends or contains another string, respectively.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates two strings: `string` (which only has the characters "car") and `stringToCheck` (which is a longer string that contains "car" at the end). The purpose of this setup is to create a scenario where one method can correctly detect the presence or absence of the substring.

**Comparison**

The comparison involves running two iterations of each benchmark:

1. `.endsWith()`: This method checks if `stringToCheck` ends with `string`.
2. `.includes()`: This method checks if `stringToCheck` contains `string`.

The results of these comparisons are measured in terms of the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons**

* **.endsWith()**: Pros:
	+ More efficient for checking if a string ends with another substring, especially when dealing with large strings.
	+ Less overhang (i.e., fewer false positives) compared to `.includes()` since it only checks for the exact match at the end of the string.
* Cons:
	+ May be less suitable for cases where you need to check for an arbitrary substring within the larger string, not just at the end.

* **.includes()**: Pros:
	+ More versatile for checking if a string contains any substring, regardless of its position.
	+ May be more intuitive for developers who are used to using this method in other contexts (e.g., array methods).
* Cons:
	+ Less efficient for checking if a string ends with another substring, especially for large strings.
	+ More likely to produce false positives due to the overhang (i.e., matching any part of the larger string).

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, it's worth noting that both `.endsWith()` and `.includes()` are built-in methods in JavaScript, so they don't require any external dependencies.

There are also no special features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of these two methods.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for checking if a string ends with another substring or contains an arbitrary substring include:

* Using regular expressions (e.g., `string.match(/.*car$/)` or `string.match(/.*car/)`).
* Implementing custom string methods using loop constructs (e.g., `function endsWith(str, suffix) { while (str.length >= suffix.length) { if (str.slice(-suffix.length) === suffix) return true; str = str.slice(0, -suffix.length); } return false; }`).
* Using a third-party library that provides optimized string matching algorithms (e.g., [js-regex](https://github.com/michaelfreeman/js-regex)).

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to using the built-in `.endsWith()` and `.includes()` methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	5045309.5 Ops/sec
.includes	4484032.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs includes (2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):