Benchmark: comparison vs array includes

Script Preparation code:

var input = ["1","2","3","4","5",".","6","7","8","9","0"];
function noop () {};

Tests:

Comparison
input.forEach((char) => {if((char >= '0' && char <= '9') || char === '.') noop(); })
Array.includes
input.forEach( (char) => {if(input.includes(char)) noop(); } )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Comparison
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.150 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Comparison	476408.2 Ops/sec
Array.includes	368077.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for checking if an element exists in an array:

1. **Array includes**: Using the `includes()` method to check if a character (`char`) is present in the input array.
2. **Comparison with values**: Iterating through the array and comparing each character with a value (in this case, numbers from '0' to '9', including '.', which is expected to pass as true) using an if statement.

**Options Compared:**
Two approaches are being compared:

1. **Array includes**: Using `includes()` method
2. **Comparison with values**: Iterating through the array and comparing each character with a value

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **Array includes**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code.
		- Can be faster for large arrays, as it uses a optimized C++ implementation under the hood.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly if the array is not properly sorted or indexed (e.g., due to insertion orders).
		- Some older browsers might have performance issues with this method.
* **Comparison with values**:
	+ Pros:
		- Works correctly even when the array is not sorted or indexed.
		- Can be more predictable and reliable in certain edge cases.
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose and less readable code.
		- May be slower for large arrays, as it requires iterating through each element.

**Library Used:**
The `noop` function is used as a no-op function, which simply does nothing. This is likely used to prevent the benchmark from running for too long or interfering with other tests.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
There are two special features being used in this benchmark:

* **Arrow functions**: The first test case uses an arrow function (`(char) => {...}`) instead of a traditional function declaration (`function noop() {}`).
* **Template literals**: The `includes()` method is called with a template literal (`input.includes(char)`), which allows for more readable string interpolation.

**Other Alternatives:**
Some alternative approaches could be:

1. Using `indexOf()` method, which returns the index of the first occurrence of the element in the array, or -1 if it's not found.
2. Using `every()` and `includes()`, which can be used to check if all elements of an array satisfy a predicate (in this case, being present).
3. Using regular expressions with `test()` method.

However, these alternatives might change the approach or syntax, so they are not being compared directly in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

comparison vs array includes (version: 0)

To know what is faster, array includes or compare with values

Comparing performance of: Comparison vs Array.includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Comparison

Array.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):