Benchmark: Includes vs some

Script Preparation code:

const array = ["morango", "abacate", "maça", "banana"];

Tests:

Includes
const array = ["morango", "abacate", "maça", "banana"]; array.includes('morango');
some
const array = ["morango", "abacate", "maça", "banana"]; array.some(a => a === 'morango');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases, each testing the performance of JavaScript arrays with different methods: `includes()` and `some()`. The goal is to measure which method is faster for searching an element within a large array.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`array.includes(element)`**: This method checks if an element exists in the array.
2. **`array.some(callback)`**: This method executes a callback function on each element of the array, returning `true` as soon as any element matches the condition.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`array.includes()`**:
    *   Pros: Simple and straightforward implementation, easy to read and understand.
    *   Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to its simple iteration approach. The search is done linearly (from start to end), resulting in O(n) complexity where n is the array length. This can lead to significant performance degradation for very large datasets.
*   **`array.some()`**:
    *   Pros: Efficient implementation that stops iterating as soon as it finds a match, reducing overall execution time.
    *   Cons: May be less intuitive and harder to understand than `includes()`, especially for developers without prior experience with `some()`.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two methods, you should consider the following:

*   **Performance requirements**: If speed is crucial, `array.some()` might be a better choice. However, if readability and simplicity are more important, `array.includes()` could be preferred.
*   **Array size**: For very large datasets, `array.some()` can provide significant performance benefits.

**Library and Special Features**

There are no libraries being used in this benchmark. Additionally, there's no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure the performance of other array methods, such as:

*   **`array.indexOf(element)`**: Returns the index of the first occurrence of `element`, or -1 if not found.
*   **`array.lastIndexOf(element)`**: Returns the index of the last occurrence of `element`, or -1 if not found.

You can add them to your benchmark by modifying the `Benchmark Definition` JSON accordingly.

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/86.0.4240.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Includes	806186688.0 Ops/sec
some	193489904.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Includes vs some (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs some

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

some

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):