Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes vs hash vs set

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 = ['banana', 'sausage', 'fork', 'knife', 'test', 'case', 'stomach', 'board', 'fridge', 'chocolate', 'string', 'ben', 'phone', 'laptop', 'screen', 'keyboard', 'mouse', 'mice', 'speakers', 'mic', 'cup', 'coffee', 'pineapple', 'door', 'window', 'bed', 'room', 'dine'];
var hash = {'banana': {'thing': 14}, 'sausage': {'thing': 14}, 'fork': {'thing': 14}, 'knife': {'thing': 14}, 'test': {'thing': 14}, 'case': {'thing': 14}, 'stomach': {'thing': 14}, 'board': {'thing': 14}, 'fridge': {'thing': 14}, 'chocolate': {'thing': 14}, 'string': {'thing': 14}, 'ben': {'thing': 14}, 'phone': {'thing': 14}, 'laptop': {'thing': 14}, 'screen': {'thing': 14}, 'keyboard': {'thing': 14}, 'mouse': {'thing': 14}, 'mice': {'thing': 14}, 'speakers': {'thing': 14}, 'mic': {'thing': 14}, 'cup': {'thing': 14}, 'coffee': {'thing': 14}, 'pineapple': {'thing': 14}, 'door': {'thing': 14}, 'window': {'thing': 14}, 'bed': {'thing': 14}, 'room': {'thing': 14}, 'dine': {'thing': 14}};
var set = new Set (['banana', 'sausage', 'fork', 'knife', 'test', 'case', 'stomach', 'board', 'fridge', 'chocolate', 'string', 'ben', 'phone', 'laptop', 'screen', 'keyboard', 'mouse', 'mice', 'speakers', 'mic', 'cup', 'coffee', 'pineapple', 'door', 'window', 'bed', 'room', 'dine']);

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf('board') !== 1
Includes
array.includes('board')
lodash
_.includes(array, 'board')
hash.hasOwnProperty
hash.hasOwnProperty('board')
hashAccess
hash['board'] = {'that':34}
set
set.has('board')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash
hash.hasOwnProperty
hashAccess
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests four different approaches to check if a specific value exists within an array or an object:

1. **`array.indexOf('board') !== 1`**: This test checks if `indexOf()` returns `-1` (not found) when searching for the string `'board'` in the `array`.
2. **`array.includes('board')`**: This test checks if `includes()` returns `true` when searching for the string `'board'` in the `array`.
3. **`.includes(array, 'board')`**: This test uses the Lodash library's `.includes()` function to search for the string `'board'` within the entire `array`.
4. **`hash.hasOwnProperty('board')`**: This test checks if the object `hash` has a property named `'board'`.
5. **`hash['board'] = {'that':34}`**: This test accesses and sets a new value for the property `'board'` in the `hash` object.
6. **`set.has('board')`**: This test checks if the Set `set` contains the string `'board'`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options for each of these approaches:

* **Native Array/Object methods**: Using native JavaScript methods (`indexOf()`, `includes()`, `hasOwnProperty()`) to check for existence.
* **Library-assisted approach**: Using an external library (Lodash) to perform the same checks.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native Array/Object methods:**

Pros:

* No dependencies on external libraries
* Often more efficient, as they are implemented in native code

Cons:

* May have performance variations across browsers
* Can be less readable or maintainable for complex checks

**Library-assisted approach (Lodash):**

Pros:

* Easier to read and maintain, especially for complex checks
* Often more consistent performance across browsers

Cons:

* Requires an external library dependency
* May introduce additional overhead due to the library itself

**Other considerations**

* **Browser variations**: The benchmark results may vary depending on the specific browser being tested. Different browsers might have optimized implementations or different performance characteristics.
* **JavaScript engine optimizations**: Modern JavaScript engines often optimize native methods, making them more efficient. Library-assisted approaches, while consistent, might still rely on engine-specific optimizations.

**Library usage**

In this case, Lodash is used to perform the `.includes()` check. This is a common pattern in JavaScript development where external libraries provide convenient and readable implementations of standard functions.

Overall, the benchmark provides a good starting point for comparing performance and readability between native Array/Object methods and library-assisted approaches.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
IndexOf	21870384.0 Ops/sec
Includes	29014712.0 Ops/sec
lodash	7051722.0 Ops/sec
hash.hasOwnProperty	19069188.0 Ops/sec
hashAccess	25580930.0 Ops/sec
set	28967208.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf vs Includes vs hash vs set (version: 1)

Banana

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash vs hash.hasOwnProperty vs hashAccess vs set

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

hash.hasOwnProperty

hashAccess

set

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):