Benchmark: includes vs slice vs startsWith

Tests:

includes
const str = "#/test/this/url" str.includes("#/")
slice
const str = "#/test/this/url" str.slice(0,2) === "#/"
startsWith
const str = "#/test/this/url" str.startsWith("#/")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
slice
startsWith

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 of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark, "includes vs slice vs startsWith", is designed to compare the performance of three different string methods: `includes`, `slice`, and `startsWith`. These methods are commonly used in JavaScript to manipulate strings.

**Options Being Compared**

1. **`includes`**: This method checks if a substring exists within a string.
2. **`slice`**: This method returns a new string that is a subset of the original string, starting from a specified index and ending at a specified length.
3. **`startsWith`**: This method checks if a string starts with a specified value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`includes`**:
	* Pros: Easy to read and write, straightforward implementation.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for large strings or frequent substring searches.
2. **`slice`**:
	* Pros: Can be faster than `includes` for substring searches, as it returns a new string instead of modifying the original.
	* Cons: Requires specifying an index and length, which can lead to errors if not done correctly.
3. **`startsWith`**:
	* Pros: Similar performance to `slice`, with the added benefit of only checking the first character.
	* Cons: May be slower than `includes` for very large strings or substring searches.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use external libraries, but it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have built-in optimizations or features that can affect performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (Not applicable)**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these benchmark test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

For string manipulation, developers often consider other methods like:

1. **`indexOf()`**: Similar to `includes`, but returns the index of the first occurrence instead of a boolean result.
2. **`substr()`**: Returns a subset of the original string using an index and length.
3. **`substring()`**: Returns a subset of the original string, similar to `slice`.
4. **Regular Expressions (regex)**: Can be used for more complex string matching and manipulation.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, or maintainability, depending on the specific use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	165900256.0 Ops/sec
slice	174515888.0 Ops/sec
startsWith	147730720.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

includes vs slice vs startsWith (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs slice vs startsWith

Created: 2 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

includes

slice

startsWith

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):