const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"
str.includes("firebase")
const str = "https://firebase.com/this/is/a/long/thing"
str.startsWith("https://firebase")
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
includes | |
startsWith |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
includes | 67313912.0 Ops/sec |
startsWith | 68929184.0 Ops/sec |
Measuring JavaScript performance can be quite complex, especially when considering the various libraries and features used in modern web development.
Benchmark Overview
The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two string methods: includes
and startsWith
. Both methods are part of the ECMAScript standard, but they behave differently.
Options Compared
In this benchmark, two options are compared:
str.includes("firebase")
: This method checks if a given string ("firebase") is present at the beginning of another string (str
). It returns true
if the substring is found, and false
otherwise.str.startsWith("https://firebase")
: This method checks if a given string ("https://firebase") is equal to the beginning of another string (str
). It returns true
if the substring matches, and false
otherwise.Pros and Cons
includes
method:startsWith
method:includes
, as it can only search for an exact match.Library Usage
There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, both methods rely on the JavaScript engine's implementation of string matching algorithms.
Special JS Features or Syntax
This benchmark does not involve any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard includes
and startsWith
methods.
Other Alternatives
If you're looking for alternatives to these string methods, consider:
RegExp
object to search for patterns in strings using regular expressions. This approach is more flexible than both includes
and startsWith
, but it may be slower due to the overhead of compiling and executing the regex pattern.In general, for most web development use cases, the standard includes
and startsWith
methods are sufficient and efficient enough. However, if you have specific requirements that necessitate more flexibility or performance, consider exploring regular expressions or alternative algorithms.