Benchmark: test of equals - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

test ==
var n = 0; var test = "test"; while(true) { n++; if(test == "test") { } if(n==100000) break; }
test includes
var n = 0; var test = "test"; while(true) { n++; if(test.includes("test")) { } if(n==100000) break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test ==
test includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark test for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to compare the performance of JavaScript code: using the `==` operator versus using the `includes()` method.

**Approaches Being Compared**

1. **Using the `==` operator**: This approach compares two strings using the loose equality operator (`==`). In JavaScript, this operator checks if both strings have the same value and are also of the same type (i.e., string).
2. **Using the `includes()` method**: This approach uses the `includes()` method to check if a substring is present within another string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using the `==` operator**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior when dealing with non-ASCII characters, null or undefined values, or NaN (Not a Number) values.
2. **Using the `includes()` method**:
	* Pros: More robust and efficient for large strings, as it only checks if the substring is present without creating a new string.
	* Cons: Requires support for modern JavaScript features and may not work in older browsers or environments.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, note that both approaches rely on built-in JavaScript functions (`==` and `includes()`).

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

Neither of these approaches requires any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern JavaScript environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test similar benchmarks for alternative approaches, some possibilities could include:

* Using regular expressions instead of the `includes()` method
* Checking if a substring is present using a loop
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for string manipulation
* Testing performance with different string normalization techniques (e.g., `toLowerCase()`, `trim()`, etc.)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity and variations, making the benchmark more challenging to interpret.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark test!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/82.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 82 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test ==	15233.8 Ops/sec
test includes	433.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test of equals (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: test == vs test includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test ==

test includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):