Benchmark: chain of or equals vs includes 2

Script Preparation code:

var x = null;
var list = [undefined, NaN, null, ''];

Tests:

Array.includes
[undefined, NaN, null, ''].includes(x)
Or chain
x === undefined || Number.isNaN(x) || x === null || x === ''
Array.includes with predefined list
list.includes(x)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Or chain
Array.includes with predefined list

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of three different approaches: using `Array.includes()`, writing a manual chain of logical ORs (`x === undefined || Number.isNaN(x) || x === null || x === ''`), and using the latter with a predefined array (`list.includes(x)`).

**Approaches Compared**

1. **`Array.includes()`**: This method checks if an element is present in an array by searching for it from the beginning of the array.
2. **Manual OR Chain**: This approach uses multiple logical ORs to check each property individually, i.e., `x === undefined || Number.isNaN(x) || x === null || x === ''`.
3. **`Array.includes()` with Predefined List**: Similar to the first approach, but it uses a predefined array (`list`) instead of the original `x`.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`Array.includes()`**: Pros:
    *   Faster and more concise.
    *   Reduces code duplication.
    *   Easier to read and maintain.
*   **Manual OR Chain**:
    *   Pros:
        +   No reliance on a specific library or function (e.g., `Array.includes()`).
        +   Can be optimized for performance by reusing intermediate results.
    *   Cons:
        *   More verbose and harder to read, especially for large arrays.
        *   Requires careful handling of edge cases.

**Library Usage**

The test uses the built-in JavaScript `Array.prototype.includes()` method, which is supported by most modern browsers. There's no external library required for this benchmark.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in most modern environments. However, it does rely on the `Number.isNaN()` function to check for NaN values, which is a standard JavaScript method since ECMAScript 5 (2011).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing the performance of these methods further, here are some additional options:

*   **Custom Implementation**: You could write your own custom implementation using bitwise operations, arithmetic checks, and other techniques to optimize performance. However, this would require a deep understanding of computer science concepts like bit manipulation and caching.
*   **Use SIMD Instructions**: If you're targeting modern browsers that support Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD) instructions (e.g., SSE, NEON), you could use vectorized operations to compare multiple elements at once. This can significantly improve performance on certain platforms but requires more complex code.
*   **Just-In-Time (JIT) Compilation**: Some JavaScript engines, like V8 in Chrome or SpiderMonkey in Firefox, have JIT compilation capabilities that allow for performance optimization during runtime. However, this is typically only accessible through specialized APIs or libraries.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require significant expertise and resources to implement effectively.

I hope this explanation has helped you understand the benchmark and its test cases better!

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/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	6369672.0 Ops/sec
Or chain	4769779.5 Ops/sec
Array.includes with predefined list	14353543.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

chain of or equals vs includes 2 (version: 0)

how much of a performance deficit you can expect from using Array.includes instead of manually writing a chain of logical ORs

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Or chain vs Array.includes with predefined list

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Or chain

Array.includes with predefined list

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):