Benchmark: testasdfasdf - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['178523', '7889778', '17171']

Tests:

includes
array.includes('7')
indexof
array.indexOf('7') !== 1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
indexof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two scripts: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The first script creates an array of strings with three elements, while the second script (which is empty) is likely a placeholder for any HTML-related code that might be executed before running the benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **includes**: This test case measures how long it takes to execute `array.includes('7')`. The array contains three strings, and we're checking if one of them is equal to '7'.
2. **indexof**: This test case measures how long it takes to execute `array.indexOf('7') !== 1`. Again, the array contains three strings, but this time we're looking for an index that's not equal to 1.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, a JavaScript library is used: none. However, if we had to identify any libraries being used implicitly, it would be the built-in `Array` methods (`includes` and `indexOf`), which are part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these benchmark definitions.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared here are:

1. **`array.includes('7')`**: This method checks if the string '7' is present in the array. It returns `true` if found and `false` otherwise.
2. **`array.indexOf('7') !== 1`**: This expression first searches for the index of '7' in the array using `indexOf`, and then checks if that index is not equal to 1.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary:

* **`includes`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, intuitive, and often faster than `indexOf`.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to a linear search.
* **`indexof`**:
	+ Pros: Faster for large arrays since it uses an optimized algorithm.
	+ Cons: More complex and potentially harder to read.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two options, consider the specific use case:

* If you know the index of '7' is likely to be close to 0 or 1, `indexOf` might be a better choice for performance reasons.
* If you're working with large arrays and need to check if '7' is present anywhere in the array, `includes` might be sufficient.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches:

* **Regular expressions**: You could use a regular expression to match the string '7' in the array. This would provide more flexibility but also introduce additional overhead.
* **Manual indexing**: You could implement your own manual indexing algorithm using loops and conditional statements. This would likely be slower than the built-in `indexOf` method.

In summary, this benchmark compares two simple yet effective approaches for checking if a value is present in an array: `array.includes('7')` and `array.indexOf('7') !== 1`. The choice between them depends on performance requirements and specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4469.2 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	13095004.0 Ops/sec
indexof	12299097.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testasdfasdf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs indexof

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

indexof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):