Benchmark: Split vs Include

Tests:

Includes
var url = "http://localhost:3000/someUrl" url.includes("/someUrl");
split and slice
const url = "http://localhost:3000/someUrl" return url.split("/").slice(-1)[0] !== "/someUrl";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
split and slice

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 benchmarking test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is called "Split vs Include" which suggests that it's comparing two different approaches to achieve the same result: checking if a URL contains a specific substring using either the `includes()` method or the `split()` method followed by `slice()` and comparison with an empty string.

**Options compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`url.includes("/someUrl")`**: This method checks if the URL contains the specified substring. It returns a boolean value (`true` if found, `false` otherwise).
2. **`url.split("/").slice(-1)[0] !== "/someUrl"`**: This approach first splits the URL into an array of substrings using the `/` character as the delimiter. Then it takes the last element of the array (which should be the entire URL) and checks if it's not equal to `"/someUrl"`. If they're not equal, the test passes.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`url.includes("/someUrl")`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, concise, and efficient. It uses a native method that is well-optimized by JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons: May be slower for large URLs due to string concatenation or other overhead.
* **`url.split("/").slice(-1)[0] !== "/someUrl"`**:
	+ Pros: Can be useful when working with URLs that contain multiple consecutive slashes, as it handles them correctly. It's also a good exercise in understanding how array manipulation can optimize performance.
	+ Cons: More complex and potentially slower than the `includes()` method, especially for very large URLs.

**Library usage**
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmarking test cases. However, the `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that's available on most modern browsers and Node.js environments.

**Special JS feature or syntax**
None are explicitly used in this benchmark. The examples use standard JavaScript features like string literals, concatenation, and array manipulation, but no special features or syntax are required to run the tests.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Use a regular expression**: You could use a regular expression to match the URL pattern instead of using `includes()`. This would provide more flexibility if you need to perform more complex string matching.
2. **Use a custom implementation**: You could implement your own string comparison algorithm, such as using bitwise operations or ASCII comparisons, but this is not recommended due to performance and maintainability concerns.

Overall, the "Split vs Include" benchmarking test case provides a straightforward way to compare the performance of two different approaches to checking if a URL contains a specific substring.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 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	172727392.0 Ops/sec
split and slice	26321992.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Split vs Include (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs split and slice

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

split and slice

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):