Benchmark: Includes (array) vs Some (array)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]

Tests:

Some
a.some(x => x == 10)
Includes
a.includes(10)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Some
Includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated yesterday):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if an element exists in an array: `includes()` and `some()`. The test case uses JavaScript, which is a popular programming language for web development.

**What are we testing?**

We're comparing the performance of these two methods:

1. `a.includes(10)`: This method checks if the element `10` is present in the array `a`.
2. `a.some(x => x == 10)`: This method uses a callback function to check if any element in the array `a` is equal to `10`.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* `includes()`: A built-in JavaScript method for arrays that checks if an element exists within the array.
* `some()`: Another built-in JavaScript method for arrays that checks if at least one element meets a certain condition.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`a.includes(10)`**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple to implement and understand.
		+ Fast execution time since it only needs to check the array once.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than `some()` for very large arrays, as it requires a linear search.
2. **`a.some(x => x == 10)`**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster than `includes()` for very large arrays, since it only needs to check one element at a time.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires a callback function, which can add complexity and make the code harder to read.
		+ May have performance issues if the array is very large.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, there are no external libraries used. Both `includes()` and `some()` are built-in JavaScript methods that don't rely on any additional libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax (not applicable)**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement a custom implementation for these methods, some alternative approaches could be:

1. **Linear search**: Implementing a linear search algorithm to find the element in the array.
2. **Binary search**: Using binary search to find the element in the array (which would require sorting the array first).
3. **Hash table-based approach**: Using an object with keys as elements of the array and checking for existence using the `hasOwnProperty()` method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or scalable as the built-in `includes()` and `some()` methods.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Some	13823600.0 Ops/sec
Includes	14206570.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Includes (array) vs Some (array) (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Some vs Includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Some

Includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated yesterday):