Benchmark: Filter with include vs filter without include

Script Preparation code:

var types = ['Type1', 'Type2', 'Type3'];
var getType = (i) => types[i % 3];
var fillList = (numberOfItems) => {
    const list = [];
    for (var i = 0; i < numberOfItems; i++) {
        list.push({
            name: `dataItem${i}`,
            value: i,
            type: getType(i)
        });
    }
    return list;
};

var dataItems100 = fillList(100);
var dataItems1000 = fillList(1000);

var dataItems100OfType1And2 = dataItems100.filter(dataItem => dataItem.type === types[0] || dataItem.type === types[1])
var dataItems1000OfType1And2 = dataItems1000.filter(dataItem => dataItem.type === types[0] || dataItem.type === types[1])

Tests:

Filter 100 items with include
dataItems100.filter(dataItem => !dataItems100OfType1And2.includes(dataItem));
Filter 100 items without include
dataItems100.filter(dataItem => dataItem.type !== types[0] && dataItem.type !== types[1]);
Filter 1000 items with include
dataItems1000.filter(dataItem => !dataItems1000OfType1And2.includes(dataItem));
Filter 1000 items without include
dataItems1000.filter(dataItem => dataItem.type !== types[0] && dataItem.type !== types[1]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Filter 100 items with include
Filter 100 items without include
Filter 1000 items with include
Filter 1000 items without include

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/92.0.4515.131 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Filter 100 items with include	97391.7 Ops/sec
Filter 100 items without include	81213.6 Ops/sec
Filter 1000 items with include	3606.1 Ops/sec
Filter 1000 items without include	7856.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two filter methods:

1. `filter()` with an `includes()` method call (Method 1)
2. `filter()` without an `includes()` method call (Method 2)

In Method 1, the filter is using the `includes()` method to check if each item in the list exists in a subset (`dataItems100OfType1And2`). In Method 2, no `includes()` method call is used.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. Filter 100 items with include (Method 1)
2. Filter 100 items without include (Method 2)
3. Filter 1000 items without include (Method 2)
4. Filter 1000 items with include (Method 1)

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are the performance differences between using `includes()` in the filter method versus not using it.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

### Method 1: `filter()` with `includes()`

Pros:

* More efficient, as the `includes()` method is optimized for array searches
* Avoids unnecessary iterations

Cons:

* Requires an additional function call, which may incur overhead
* May be slower due to the extra operation

### Method 2: `filter()` without `includes()`

Pros:

* Faster execution, as no additional function call is required
* Less overhead compared to Method 1

Cons:

* More iterations are needed, as the filter must check each item individually
* May be slower for large datasets

**Library: `Array.prototype.includes()`**

The `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if an element exists in an array. Its purpose is to provide a concise way to determine whether a specific value or expression matches any of the elements in the array.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None mentioned**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.findIndex()` and `Array.prototype.map()` in combination with a conditional statement
* Implementing a custom filtering algorithm using a loop and manual iteration

However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient than the built-in methods used in the benchmark.

In conclusion, the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two filter methods: one that uses `includes()` within the filter method (Method 1) and another that doesn't use it (Method 2). The results will provide insight into the efficiency gains or losses associated with using the `includes()` method in this context.

Related benchmarks:

Filter with include vs filter without include (version: 1)

A comparison between a filter using include vs the same filter without include

Comparing performance of: Filter 100 items with include vs Filter 100 items without include vs Filter 1000 items with include vs Filter 1000 items without include

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Filter 100 items with include

Filter 100 items without include

Filter 1000 items with include

Filter 1000 items without include

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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