Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (large)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [...Array(1000000).keys()];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(9)
lookup
return b.has(9)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	24672378.0 Ops/sec
lookup	16628092.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which specifies two test cases: `set.has` and `array.includes (large)`. The former tests the lookup performance of a `Set` data structure in JavaScript, while the latter compares the execution time of the `includes()` method on an array.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

1. **`set.has`**: This option uses the `has()` method of a `Set` object to search for a specific value (in this case, 9). A `Set` is a collection of unique values, which provides fast lookup times.
2. **`array.includes`**: This option uses the `includes()` method on an array to search for a specific value (in this case, 9). The `includes()` method iterates over the elements of the array and returns `true` if the specified value is found.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each option:

**`set.has`**

Pros:

* Fast lookup times due to the optimized internal data structure.
* Efficient use of memory, as only unique values are stored.

Cons:

* May not work as expected if the Set contains duplicate values or if the value is not present in the Set.
* Requires a `Set` object to be created and populated with values.

**`array.includes`**

Pros:

* Works with arrays that contain duplicate values or other data structures (not applicable in this benchmark).
* Does not require creating a new data structure (e.g., `Set`).

Cons:

* Generally slower than `set.has` due to the need to iterate over elements.
* May use more memory if the array contains large amounts of data.

**Other Considerations**

In this specific benchmark, the test cases are designed to isolate the performance differences between `set.has` and `array.includes`. However, in real-world scenarios, you might encounter additional considerations:

* **Handling edge cases**: How will your code handle cases where the value is not present in the Set or array?
* **Array data structure**: Will your use case involve large arrays or other data structures that may impact performance?

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, a `Set` object is used as the underlying data structure. The `Set` library is part of the JavaScript standard library (ECMAScript) and provides an efficient way to store unique values.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

* **Using a different data structure**: Instead of `Set`, you could use other data structures like arrays, linked lists, or trees.
* **Implementing your own lookup algorithm**: You could create a custom lookup algorithm that suits your specific use case.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of performance as the optimized internal data structure used by JavaScript's `Set` object.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes (large) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

lookup

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):