Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes various array sizes

Script Preparation code:

var a10k = new Array(10000).fill(undefined).map((x,i) => i);
var b10k = new Set(a10k)
var a1k = new Array(1000).fill(undefined).map((x,i) => i);
var b1k = new Set(a1k);
var c = Math.floor(Math.random()*10000);
var d = Math.floor(Math.random()*1000);

Tests:

includes10k
return a10k.includes(c)
lookup10k
return b10k.has(c)
includes1k
return a1k.includes(d)
lookup1k
return b1k.has(d)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes10k
lookup10k
includes1k
lookup1k

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

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/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes10k	3113003.0 Ops/sec
lookup10k	10060960.0 Ops/sec
includes1k	4793088.0 Ops/sec
lookup1k	10269430.0 Ops/sec

set.has vs. array.includes various array sizes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes10k vs lookup10k vs includes1k vs lookup1k

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes10k

lookup10k

includes1k

lookup1k

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A