Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes -- Strings 3

Script Preparation code:

var s = 'bananasausagejesus';
var count = 0;

Tests:

IndexOf
if (s.indexOf('sausage') !== -1) { count++; }
Includes
if (s.includes('sausage')) { count++; }
indexOf greater
if (s.indexOf('sausage') > -1) { count++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
indexOf greater

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's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between three ways to check if a substring exists in a string:

1. `indexOf()`
2. `includes()`
3. `indexOf()` with a greater-than comparison (`> -1`)

These methods are used to search for a specific substring within a larger string.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of three different approaches:

* `indexOf()`: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if it's not found.
* `includes()`: This method returns a boolean indicating whether the array includes an element with the same value as the one provided.
* `indexOf()` with a greater-than comparison (`> -1`): This approach checks if the index is greater than -1, which means the substring was found.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

* `indexOf()`: Pros:
	+ Fastest among the three options.
	+ Returns an index value, which can be useful for further processing.
	Cons:
	+ Can return -1 if the substring is not found, which may lead to unnecessary checks.
* `includes()`: Pros:
	+ Simplifies the comparison logic by returning a boolean directly.
	Cons:
	+ May be slower than `indexOf()` due to its additional checks.
* `indexOf()` with greater-than comparison (`> -1`): Pros:
	+ Eliminates the need for explicit checks for -1.
	Cons:
	+ May lead to unnecessary function calls or computations if the index is not found.

**Library used**

None of the provided benchmark cases explicitly use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have built-in optimizations or caching mechanisms that could affect the results.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark doesn't mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. It simply uses standard JavaScript methods and data types.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few examples:

* Using `String.prototype.indexOf()` with a callback function to return the index directly.
* Implementing a custom substring search algorithm using bitwise operations or other techniques.
* Using alternative string manipulation libraries like RegEx or ICU.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs, which are not explicitly considered in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:72.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/72.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 72 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
IndexOf	18522412.0 Ops/sec
Includes	18632210.0 Ops/sec
indexOf greater	18738764.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf vs Includes -- Strings 3 (version: 1)

Banana

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs indexOf greater

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

indexOf greater

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):