Run results for: index vs lastindexof empty with startIndex set to 0

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.92 Safari/537.36

Browser: Chrome 81

Operating system: Mac OS X 10.15.4

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: 4 years ago

Test name	Executions per second
lastIndexOf	30921460.0 Ops/sec
indexOf	798050800.0 Ops/sec

Tests:

lastIndexOf
var str = "According to that, indexOf is just a little bit faster. Of course, it does depend on what you are indexing.IndexOf looks for the first occurrence and lastIndexOf returns to the last occurrence. That all said, their are much better functions around now like map.To be honest though, if Google is using it there is probably a good reason."; var n = str.lastIndexOf("havent string", 0);
indexOf
var str = "According to that, indexOf is just a little bit faster. Of course, it does depend on what you are indexing.IndexOf looks for the first occurrence and lastIndexOf returns to the last occurrence. That all said, their are much better functions around now like map.To be honest though, if Google is using it there is probably a good reason."; var n = str.indexOf("havent string", 0);