Benchmark: Search small array

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
var map = new Map();
var obj = {};

for (var i = 0; i < 20; i++){
  array.push(Math.floor(Math.random()*5));
  map.set(i,true);
  obj[i]=true;
}
var sorted = array.sort()

function binaryIndexOf(searchElement) {
    var minIndex = 0;
    var maxIndex = this.length - 1;
    var currentIndex;
    var currentElement;
     while (minIndex <= maxIndex) {
        currentIndex = (minIndex + maxIndex) / 2 | 0;
        currentElement = sorted[currentIndex];
 
        if (currentElement < searchElement) {
            minIndex = currentIndex + 1;
        }
        else if (currentElement > searchElement) {
            maxIndex = currentIndex - 1;
        }
        else {
            return currentIndex;
        }
    }
 
    return -1;
}

Tests:

includes
sorted.includes(Math.floor(Math.random()*7))
binary
binaryIndexOf(Math.floor(Math.random()*7))
indexof
sorted.indexOf(Math.floor(Math.random()*7))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
binary
indexof

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: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	21670970.0 Ops/sec
binary	24864620.0 Ops/sec
indexof	21294480.0 Ops/sec

Search small array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs binary vs indexof

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

binary

indexof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A