Benchmark: Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs lodash includes with numerical values

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1, 10, 5, 6, 2, 4, 3, 8, 7, 9]

Tests:

Array.indexOf
array.indexOf(3) !== -1
Array.includes
array.includes(3)
lodash includes
_.includes(array, 3)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.indexOf
Array.includes
lodash includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of three different methods to check if an element exists in an array:

1. `Array.indexOf()`
2. `Array.includes()`
3. `_includes()` from the Lodash library

These methods are compared to determine which one is the fastest.

**Options being compared**

There are two main options being compared: built-in JavaScript methods (`Array.indexOf()` and `Array.includes()`) vs a third-party library method (`_.includes()` from Lodash).

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **Built-in JavaScript methods (`Array.indexOf()` and `Array.includes()`)`**
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported by most browsers
		- Simple and concise syntax
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of method calls
		- May not be optimized for performance
* **Third-party library method (`_.includes()` from Lodash)`**
	+ Pros:
		- Optimized for performance, often written in native code
		- Can provide additional features and functionality
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library)
		- May not be supported by all browsers

**Library and its purpose**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used to provide a third-party implementation of the `_.includes()` method. The library's purpose is to provide a more efficient and flexible alternative to the built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JS features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript constructs.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to implement your own custom implementation of the `includes()` method, you could use a simple loop to iterate through the array elements and check for the target value. However, this approach would likely be slower than using an optimized library like Lodash or relying on built-in JavaScript methods.

In summary, the benchmark tests the performance of three different methods to check if an element exists in an array: built-in JavaScript methods (`Array.indexOf()` and `Array.includes()`), a third-party library method (`_.includes()` from Lodash), and custom implementation (although not explicitly tested).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.indexOf	85632160.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes	94206936.0 Ops/sec
lodash includes	34992480.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs lodash includes with numerical values (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs lodash includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

lodash includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):