Benchmark: string IndexOf vs string Includes vs lodash includes vs lodash indexOf

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var _str = 'https://test.org.com/test/test/test/azaza?param1=123123&param2=890859083459083405jlk&{utms}&test_param=[asd]qwd';

Tests:

string IndexOf
_str.indexOf('{utms}') !== -1
string Includes
_str.includes('{utms}')
lodash includes
_.includes(_str, '{utms}')
lodash indexOf
_.indexOf(_str, '{utms}') !== -1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string IndexOf
string Includes
lodash includes
lodash indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The test measures the performance of three different string methods in JavaScript: `indexOf`, `includes`, and their respective counterparts from the Lodash library, `_.indexOf` and `_.includes`.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Native `string.indexOf`**: This method searches for a specific substring within a given string.
2. **Native `string.includes`**: This method checks if a specified value is present in a string.
3. **Lodash's `_indexOf`**: A custom implementation of the `indexOf` method using Lodash's utility functions.
4. **Lodash's `_includes`**: A custom implementation of the `includes` method using Lodash's utility functions.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   Native methods:
    *   Pros: Built-in, efficient, and well-optimized by the browser engine.
    *   Cons: May not be as flexible or customizable as other implementations.
*   Lodash's `_indexOf` and `_includes`:
    *   Pros: More flexible and customizable than native methods, with additional features like searching for multiple values.
    *   Cons: May introduce overhead due to the use of a custom implementation.

**Other considerations:**

*   The test case uses the `lodash.js` library, which provides various utility functions for string manipulation, among other things. In this context, it's used to provide custom implementations of the `indexOf` and `includes` methods.
*   There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The script preparation code defines a test string `_str`, which contains various URL parameters and an object with a property named `{utms}`. The HTML preparation code includes the Lodash library, specifically the `lodash.min.js` file, to provide access to the `_indexOf` and `_includes` functions.

**Latest benchmark results:**

The provided data shows the execution rates for each test case across different browsers and devices. This allows users to compare the performance of native methods with their custom Lodash implementations.

In terms of alternatives, other JavaScript libraries or frameworks (like jQuery) might offer similar string manipulation functionality. However, MeasureThat.net's focus on measuring the performance of specific strings operations makes it an ideal platform for comparing different implementation approaches.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/72.0.3626.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 72 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string IndexOf	9210427.0 Ops/sec
string Includes	7060361.0 Ops/sec
lodash includes	2927401.8 Ops/sec
lodash indexOf	1430293.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string IndexOf vs string Includes vs lodash includes vs lodash indexOf (version: 0)

urls

Comparing performance of: string IndexOf vs string Includes vs lodash includes vs lodash indexOf

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string IndexOf

string Includes

lodash includes

lodash indexOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):