Benchmark: Includes to compare strings

Tests:

includes
'aLongRouteName'.includes('aLongRouteName') 'aLongRouteName'.includes('shortName')
===
'aLongRouteName' === 'aLongRouteName' 'aLongRouteName' === 'shortName'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
===

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.121 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	37600100.0 Ops/sec
===	858126400.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller parts to make it easier to understand.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares different approaches for checking if a string includes another substring or if two strings are equal. The test cases measure the execution time and number of executions per second for each approach.

**Options compared:**

There are three options compared:

1. `includes`: This option uses the `.includes()` method to check if a string contains a specific substring.
2. `===`: This option uses the triple equals operator (`===`) to compare two strings for equality.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. `includes`:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient, as it stops searching once the substring is found.
		+ Can be faster than other methods for large strings.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work correctly with null or undefined values.
		+ Some older browsers may have issues with this method.
2. `===`:
	* Pros:
		+ Works correctly with null and undefined values.
		+ Wide browser support.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than the `includes()` method for large strings, as it checks every character.
		+ Can lead to false positives if the strings are not exactly equal (e.g., due to whitespace or formatting differences).

**Other considerations:**

* Null and undefined values: Both options handle null and undefined values differently. The `includes()` method will throw an error if used with null or undefined, while the triple equals operator (`===`) returns false.
* Browser support: Some older browsers may have issues with the `.includes()` method. In such cases, using the triple equals operator (`===`) might be a safer choice.

**Library and its purpose (if applicable):**

There are no external libraries used in these test cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax (if applicable):**

None mentioned explicitly. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines often have features like String.prototype.includes() which uses optimized internal methods to achieve better performance compared to the standard includes() method with a for loop.

**Benchmark preparation code and test case description:**

The benchmark preparation code is empty, indicating that no specific setup or configuration is required to run these tests. The test cases are designed to be simple and straightforward, allowing users to easily compare different approaches without worrying about extraneous factors.

**Alternative benchmarks:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative benchmarks or modifying the existing ones, some options include:

* Checking string concatenation performance
* Comparing JSON parsing performance
* Measuring the impact of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) on benchmark results

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net offers a wide range of benchmarks and test cases to explore. You can always experiment with new or modified test cases to gather more insights into specific aspects of JavaScript performance.

Related benchmarks:

Includes to compare strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs ===

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

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):