Benchmark: map.has vs. array.includes - large array - random Access

Script Preparation code:

var a = [];
var b = new Map()
for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++){
  a.push(i);
  b.set(i, Math.random());
}

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(Math.floor(Math.random()*100000))
lookup
return b.has(Math.floor(Math.random()*100000))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is tested?**

The main difference between two approaches: using `array.includes()` versus `Map.has()`. Both methods are used to check if an element exists in a collection (an array or a Map, respectively).

**Options being compared**

There are two options:

1. **`array.includes()`**: A method that checks if an element is present in the given array. It returns `true` if the element is found and `false` otherwise.
2. **`Map.has()`**: A method on the Map object that checks if a key (element) exists in the map.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **`array.includes()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Widespread support across browsers and JavaScript engines.
		+ Simple to understand and use.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for large arrays due to the need to traverse the array from start to end.
2. **`Map.has()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster than `array.includes()` for large datasets, as it uses a hash table lookup.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited support across older browsers and JavaScript engines that don't natively support Maps (e.g., IE 11).

**Library used**

In this benchmark, the `Map` object is used from the ECMAScript standard library.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided test cases. However, it's worth noting that `Map.has()` is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and was not widely supported until recent browsers and JavaScript engines adopted it.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between `array.includes()` and `Map.has()`, consider the following:

* If you're working with large datasets, `Map.has()` might be a better choice due to its performance advantages.
* If you need to use this approach in older browsers or JavaScript engines that don't natively support Maps, you may need to consider alternative solutions.

**Other alternatives**

If you can't use `Map.has()`, other alternatives for checking if an element exists in a collection might include:

1. **`indexOf()`**: A method on arrays that returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified element, or -1 if it's not found.
2. **`in` operator**: Can be used to check if an element is present in an array using `for...in` loops (although this approach can be slower than others).

However, these alternatives might not offer the same performance benefits as `Map.has()` for large datasets.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 111 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	76742.4 Ops/sec
lookup	1160357.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

map.has vs. array.includes - large array - random Access (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: one year 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 25 days ago):