Benchmark: find deleted element index

Script Preparation code:

var e = [];
var local = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    local.push(i + 1);
    if (i !== 97) {
		e.push(i)
    }
}

Tests:

using set
const set = new Set(e); const lastNonCommonElement = local.findIndex(element => !set.has(element));
using includes
const lastNonCommonElement = local.findIndex(element => !e.includes(element));
using for loop
const set = new Set(e); let deletedElementIndex = -1; for (let i = 0; i < local.length; i++) { if (!set.has(e[i])) { deletedElementIndex = i; break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using set
using includes
using for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using set	323595.5 Ops/sec
using includes	184098.1 Ops/sec
using for loop	76034.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that aims to measure the performance of three different approaches to find the index of a deleted element in an array:

1. Using a `Set` data structure.
2. Using the `includes()` method on an array.
3. Using a simple for loop.

**Options comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each approach and their pros and cons:

1. **Using a `Set` data structure**:
	* Pros: Efficient lookup, fast membership testing, and good cache locality.
	* Cons: Requires more memory to store the set, and may not be suitable for large datasets.
2. **Using `includes()` method on an array**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, widely supported, and easy to implement.
	* Cons: May have slower performance compared to a `Set` data structure for very large arrays, and can lead to unnecessary computations if the element is not found.
3. **Using a simple for loop**:
	* Pros: Simple to understand and implement, no additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: Slow and inefficient, especially for large datasets.

**Library usage**

The `Set` data structure is implemented in JavaScript as part of the standard library. It's a fundamental data structure that provides efficient membership testing and insertion operations.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard. The focus is on comparing different approaches to achieve a specific performance goal.

**Alternative approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Binary search**: A more complex approach that can be used to find the index of an element in a sorted array.
* **Hashing**: Using a hash table data structure to store the elements and perform lookups efficiently.
* **Caching**: Storing the results of previous computations to avoid redundant work.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have their own set of trade-offs, such as increased memory usage or complexity, and might not be suitable for all use cases.

The provided benchmark test cases are well-suited for measuring the performance of different approaches to find a specific element's index. By comparing the execution times of each approach, you can gain insights into which method is most efficient for your particular use case.

Related benchmarks:

find deleted element index (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using set vs using includes vs using for loop

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using set

using includes

using for loop

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):