Benchmark: string.includes VS string.split VS JSON.parse

Script Preparation code:

var target = "PaymentProvider5";
var optionA = "PaymentProvider1;PaymentProvider2;PaymentProvider3;PaymentProvider4;PaymentProvider5;PaymentProvider6";
var optionB = "[{\"item\": \"PaymentProvider1\"}, {\"item\": \"PaymentProvider2\"}, {\"item\": \"PaymentProvider3\"}, {\"item\": \"PaymentProvider4\"}, {\"item\": \"PaymentProvider5\"}, {\"item\": \"PaymentProvider6\"}]";
var optionC = "[\"PaymentProvider1\", \"PaymentProvider2\", \"PaymentProvider3\", \"PaymentProvider4\", \"PaymentProvider5\", \"PaymentProvider6\"]";

Tests:

Includes
optionA.includes(target)
Split
optionA.split(';').find(p => p === target) !== undefined
JSON.parse - Array with key-values
JSON.parse(optionB).find( p => p.item === target) !== undefined
JSON.parse - Array with raw values
JSON.parse(optionC).find( p => p === target) !== undefined

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
Split
JSON.parse - Array with key-values
JSON.parse - Array with raw values

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.0.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Includes	12254420.0 Ops/sec
Split	6504450.5 Ops/sec
JSON.parse - Array with key-values	3279291.0 Ops/sec
JSON.parse - Array with raw values	5251328.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three string manipulation functions in JavaScript:

1. `string.includes`
2. `string.split` with a callback function to find a specific value
3. `JSON.parse` on two types of arrays: one with key-value pairs (`optionB`) and the other with raw values (`optionC`).

**Options Compared**

The options compared are:

* `string.includes(target)`: checks if a specified string (`target`) is present in another string (`optionA`)
* `optionA.split(';').find(p => p === target) !== undefined`: splits the string `optionA` into an array of values using the semicolon as a delimiter, and then finds the first value that matches the `target` string
* `JSON.parse(optionB).find( p => p.item === target) !== undefined`: parses the JSON string `optionB` into an array, and then finds the first object with a matching `item` property that equals the `target` string
* `JSON.parse(optionC).find( p => p === target) !== undefined`: parses the JSON string `optionC` into an array, and then finds the first value in the array that matches the `target` string

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each option:

1. **string.includes**
	* Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported
	* Cons: can be slow for large strings due to the use of regular expressions
2. **optionA.split(';').find(p => p === target) !== undefined**
	* Pros: flexible and robust, as it handles multiple values separated by semicolons
	* Cons: may be slower than `string.includes` due to the array splitting and searching process
3. **JSON.parse(optionB).find( p => p.item === target) !== undefined**
	* Pros: efficient for parsing JSON arrays with key-value pairs
	* Cons: requires parsing a full JSON object, which can be overkill for simple string matching
4. **JSON.parse(optionC).find( p => p === target) !== undefined**
	* Pros: efficient for searching in an array of raw values
	* Cons: may not work as expected if the array contains non-string values

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also includes metadata about the test runs, such as:

* `RawUAString`: the User Agent string of the browser running the test
* `Browser`: the specific browser version and architecture
* `DevicePlatform`: the type of device being tested (e.g., Desktop, Mobile)
* `OperatingSystem`: the operating system running the test

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, two libraries are used:

1. **JSON.parse**: a built-in JavaScript function for parsing JSON strings into native objects.
2. No explicit library is mentioned for the other options, but it's assumed that they use built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript string manipulation and array methods.

As for alternatives, if you're looking to optimize or compare these string matching functions further, you may consider:

* Using a more efficient string matching algorithm, such as Boyer-Moore or Knuth-Morris-Pratt
* Implementing a custom string search function using bitwise operations or other optimization techniques
* Comparing the performance of these functions on different data types (e.g., strings, numbers, booleans)
* Investigating the impact of caching or memoization on the performance of these functions

Related benchmarks:

string.includes VS string.split VS JSON.parse (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs Split vs JSON.parse - Array with key-values vs JSON.parse - Array with raw values

Created: 3 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Includes

Split

JSON.parse - Array with key-values

JSON.parse - Array with raw values

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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