Benchmark: Set vs Includes - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Array includes
array = [] for (var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { array[i] = i } array2 = array.reverse().filter((e, i, a) => !(a.slice(i+1).includes(e))).reverse()
Set
array = [] for (var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { array[i] = i } array2 = Array.from(new Set(array))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array includes
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 the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array: using `includes()` method (also known as "array includes") versus using a `Set` data structure. The test cases are designed to measure which approach is faster for large arrays.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Array Includes**: Using the `includes()` method to check if an element exists in the array.
2. **Set**: Using a `Set` data structure to filter out elements from the original array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

### Array Includes

Pros:

* Familiar syntax for most developers
* Easy to understand and implement
* Fast lookup times, but can be slower for large arrays due to unnecessary computations

Cons:

* Can lead to unnecessary computations (e.g., creating intermediate arrays or performing multiple lookups)
* May not be optimized by the browser's JavaScript engine

### Set

Pros:

* Efficient data structure for fast lookup and insertion times
* Eliminates unnecessary computations compared to array includes
* Can be faster for large arrays due to its optimized implementation

Cons:

* Requires a `Set` object creation, which can introduce overhead
* May not be as familiar or intuitive for some developers

**Library Used:**

None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that `Array.from(new Set(array))` is using the `Set` constructor to create a new set from the original array.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

* None explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets.
* However, `var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++` uses an older syntax for looping (`for (var i = 0; i <= 10000; i++)`) compared to modern ES6/ES7 syntax (`for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++)`). This may not be relevant to the benchmark's performance, but it's worth noting for clarity.

**Alternative Approaches:**

Other approaches that could potentially be used for this benchmark include:

* Using `filter()` method on the original array
* Using a custom implementation with loop and conditional statements
* Utilizing browser-specific features like WebAssembly or SIMD instructions (not applicable in this case)

In conclusion, the benchmark is testing two different approaches to filter an array: using the `includes()` method versus creating a `Set` data structure. The test aims to measure which approach is faster for large arrays and provide insights into the performance characteristics of each method.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**

The provided "Script Preparation Code" and "Html Preparation Code" fields are empty, suggesting that no additional setup or configuration is required for this benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_6_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.6.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.6.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array includes	5.4 Ops/sec
Set	501.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Set vs Includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array includes vs Set

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array includes

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):