Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (with strings array)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [
      "totalScheduledPosts",
      "totalPublishedPosts",
      "totalAssetsDownloaded",
      "totalScheduledAds",
      "totalPublishedAds",
      "totalViewsAllPosts",
      "totalLikesAllPosts",
      "totalCommentsAllPosts",
      "totalSharesAllPosts",
      "totalLinkClicksAllPosts",
      "totalPublishedFacebookAds",
      "totalFacebookImpressions",
      "totalFacebookReach",
      "totalFacebookEngagement",
      "totalFacebookClicks",
      "totalFacebookBudgetSpent",
      "totalPublishedGoogleAds",
      "totalGoogleImpressions",
      "totalGoogleReach",
      "totalGoogleClicks",
      "totalGoogleBudgetSpent",
      "totalImpressions",
      "totalReach",
      "totalEngagement",
      "totalLinkClicks",
      "spentBudget",
      "totalParticipants",
      "totalFacebookPaidAds",
      "totalGooglePaidAds",
      "totalFacebookPaidAdsBudget",
      "totalGooglePaidAdsBudget",
      "totalFacebookPaidAdsSpend",
      "totalGooglePaidAdsSpend",
      "amountCalls",
      "amountEmails",
      "totalAdBudget",
      "totalAdSpend",
      "totalAdImpressions",
      "facebookPostsScheduled",
      "facebookPostsPublished",
      "facebookPostsImpressions",
      "facebookPostsLikes",
      "facebookPostsComments",
      "facebookPostsShares",
      "facebookPostsClicks",
      "linkedinPostsScheduled",
      "linkedinPostsPublished",
      "linkedinPostsImpressions",
      "linkedinPostsComments",
      "totalInstagramPostsScheduled",
      "totalInstagramPostsPublished",
      "totalInstagramPostsImpressions",
      "totalInstagramPostsReach",
      "totalInstagramPostsEngagement",
      "totalInstagramPostsVideoViews",
      "totalPostsScheduled",
      "totalPostsPublished",
      "totalImpressions",
      "totalPublishedFacebookAds",
      "totalScheduledFacebookAds",
      "totalFacebookAdsImpressions",
      "totalFacebookAdsReach",
      "totalFacebookAdsEngagement",
      "totalFacebookAdsClicks",
      "totalFacebookAdsSpent",
      "totalFacebookAdsBudget",
      "totalPublishedGoogleAds",
      "totalScheduledGoogleAds",
      "totalGoogleImpressions",
      "totalGoogleViews",
      "totalGoogleClicks",
      "totalGoogleAdsSpent",
      "totalGoogleBudget",
      "totalFacebookPaidAds",
      "totalGooglePaidAds",
      "totalFacebookPaidAdsBudget",
      "totalGooglePaidAdsBudget",
      "totalFacebookPaidAdsSpend",
      "totalGooglePaidAdsSpend",
      "totalPublishedAds",
      "totalScheduledAds",
      "totalAdImpressions",
      "totalAdClicks",
      "totalAdSpend",
      "totalAdBudget",
   ];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes('totalImpressions')
lookup
return b.has('totalImpressions')

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 one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that checks if a specific string (`"totalImpressions"`) exists in two different arrays:

1. `a`: an array of strings
2. A set created from `a`, denoted as `b`.

The goal is to compare the performance of these two approaches: using `array.includes()` and using a `Set` lookup (`set.has()`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Array.includes()**: checks if a specific value exists in an array
2. **Set lookup (`set.has()`)**: checks if a specific value exists in a set

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Array.includes():**

Pros:

* Widely supported and implemented in most browsers
* Can be used with arrays of various data types, not just strings
* Often faster than sets for large datasets

Cons:

* Has to iterate over the array to find the match
* Can be slower for very large arrays or sets

**Set lookup (`set.has()`):**

Pros:

* Fast lookups, as sets use hash tables internally
* Efficient for large datasets, as it only checks existence and doesn't require iteration
* Often faster than `array.includes()` for large datasets

Cons:

* Requires a set data structure to be created beforehand
* May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support sets

**Library Used**

The `Set` data structure is used, which is a built-in JavaScript object that stores unique values. It provides an efficient way to check if a value exists in the set using the `has()` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned explicitly, but it's worth noting that both `array.includes()` and `set.has()` use a concept called "iteration" under the hood, which can be optimized or sped up using techniques like parallelization or caching. However, these optimizations are not directly related to the syntax itself.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare performance with other data structures, such as:

* **Objects**: You could create an object with a specific value and check if it exists in the array using `in` operator or `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()`. However, this would be slower than sets for large datasets.
* **Maps**: Similar to sets, maps provide fast lookups but are designed for key-value pairs. If you need to store data that can be accessed by a unique identifier, a map might be a better choice.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches may vary depending on the specific use case and dataset size.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	34302612.0 Ops/sec
lookup	34614188.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes (with strings array) (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 one month ago):