Benchmark: includes vs indexOf (Array and String)

Script Preparation code:

let array = ["Lorem", "ipsum", "dolor", "sit", "amet", "consectetur", "adipisicing", "elit.", "Perferendis", "rerum", "quos,", "laudantium", "modi", "magnam", "inventore", "ab", "deleniti", "vero", "eos", "aperiam", "facilis", "laboriosam", "sint!", "Sed", "eius", "facere", "tenetur", "nostrum.", "Doloribus,", "itaque."];

Tests:

string.indexOf
let string = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Perferendis rerum quos, laudantium modi magnam inventore ab deleniti vero eos aperiam facilis laboriosam sint! Sed eius facere tenetur nostrum. Doloribus, itaque."; string.indexOf("magnam") string.indexOf("adipisicing") string.indexOf("not found")
string.includes
let string = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Perferendis rerum quos, laudantium modi magnam inventore ab deleniti vero eos aperiam facilis laboriosam sint! Sed eius facere tenetur nostrum. Doloribus, itaque."; string.includes("magnam") string.includes("adipisicing") string.includes("not found")
array.indexOf
let array = ["Lorem", "ipsum", "dolor", "sit", "amet", "consectetur", "adipisicing", "elit.", "Perferendis", "rerum", "quos,", "laudantium", "modi", "magnam", "inventore", "ab", "deleniti", "vero", "eos", "aperiam", "facilis", "laboriosam", "sint!", "Sed", "eius", "facere", "tenetur", "nostrum.", "Doloribus,", "itaque."]; array.indexOf("magnam") array.indexOf("adipisicing") array.indexOf("not found")
array.includes
let array = ["Lorem", "ipsum", "dolor", "sit", "amet", "consectetur", "adipisicing", "elit.", "Perferendis", "rerum", "quos,", "laudantium", "modi", "magnam", "inventore", "ab", "deleniti", "vero", "eos", "aperiam", "facilis", "laboriosam", "sint!", "Sed", "eius", "facere", "tenetur", "nostrum.", "Doloribus,", "itaque."]; array.includes("magnam") array.includes("adipisicing") array.includes("not found")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string.indexOf
string.includes
array.indexOf
array.includes

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 is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare performance of different approaches. The current benchmark measures the performance of three methods: `indexOf`, `includes`, and their corresponding array versions (`array.indexOf` and `array.includes`) on both strings and arrays.

**Tested Options**

1. **String `indexOf`**: This method is used to search for a substring within a string.
2. **String `includes`**: This method is used to check if a string contains a specific value or pattern.
3. **Array `indexOf`**: Similar to the string version, but searches within an array of values instead.
4. **Array `includes`**: Similar to the string version, but checks if an array includes a specific value or pattern.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of each method across different scenarios:

* String `indexOf`: Finds "magnam" and "adipisicing" in the provided string.
* String `includes`: Checks for "magnam", "adipisicing", and "not found".
* Array `indexOf`: Finds "magnam" and "adipisicing" in the array of strings.
* Array `includes`: Checks for "magnam", "adipisicing", and "not found".

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **String `indexOf`**: Pros: Efficient, fast, and widely supported. Cons: May be slow for large strings or when searching for an exact match.
2. **String `includes`**: Pros: More flexible than `indexOf`, handles partial matches, and is more forgiving. Cons: Slower than `indexOf`.
3. **Array `indexOf`**: Similar pros and cons as string `indexOf`.
4. **Array `includes`**: Similar pros and cons as string `includes`.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these methods, consider the following:

* Use `indexOf` for exact matches, especially when searching within a large dataset.
* Use `includes` for partial matches or when you need to handle cases with typos or variations in spelling.
* Use `array.indexOf` and `array.includes` when working with arrays of values.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative methods that may be worth considering include:

1. **Regular Expressions**: Can provide more flexibility, but can also be slower due to the overhead of parsing and compiling regular expressions.
2. **String matching libraries**: Such as `String.prototype.match()` or third-party libraries like `sregex` or `regex.js`, which offer more features than basic `indexOf` and `includes`.
3. **Custom solutions**: Depending on your specific use case, you might be able to optimize your code further by using custom methods that take advantage of the data structure or algorithm being used.

Overall, these benchmarks provide a good starting point for understanding the performance differences between different JavaScript methods, but may not cover every edge case or optimization opportunity.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.60 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string.indexOf	587984000.0 Ops/sec
string.includes	2901697.8 Ops/sec
array.indexOf	596827072.0 Ops/sec
array.includes	577571264.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

includes vs indexOf (Array and String) (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: string.indexOf vs string.includes vs array.indexOf vs array.includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

string.indexOf

string.includes

array.indexOf

array.includes

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):