Benchmark: set.add test2 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

set
const set = new Set() let check = 0 for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const val = Math.random() set.add(val) set.has(val) }
arr
const arr = [] let check = 0 for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { const val = Math.random() arr.push(val) if (i > 10) check++ arr.includes(arr[i]) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
set
arr

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 what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The two individual test cases are designed to measure the performance of adding elements to a data structure and checking if an element exists within it.

In the first test case, `set.add test2`, we have:

* A new Set object created.
* 100,000 iterations where:
	+ A random value is generated using `Math.random()`.
	+ The value is added to the Set using `set.add(val)`.
	+ The existence of the value in the Set is checked using `set.has(val)`.

In the second test case, `arr`, we have:

* An empty array created.
* 100,000 iterations where:
	+ A random value is generated using `Math.random()`.
	+ The value is pushed onto the array using `arr.push(val)`.
	+ If the iteration index is greater than 10, a counter variable `check` is incremented.
	+ The existence of the element at the current index in the array is checked using `arr.includes(arr[i])`.

**Options compared**

The two test cases are comparing different approaches to adding elements to a data structure and checking for existence:

1. **Set**: Using a Set object, which provides fast membership testing (i.e., checking if an element exists).
2. **Array**: Using an array, where elements must be added at the end using `push()` or `unshift()`, and checking for existence using `includes()`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Set:**

Pros:

* Fast membership testing
* Efficient insertion and removal operations

Cons:

* May not provide a complete order of elements (e.g., no guarantee that the elements are stored in any particular order)
* Can be slower than arrays for certain use cases, especially when elements need to be inserted or removed frequently

**Array:**

Pros:

* Elements can be added at any position using `push()` or `unshift()`.
* Can provide a complete order of elements.

Cons:

* Membership testing (e.g., using `includes()`) can be slower than with Sets.
* Insertion and removal operations can be slower than with Sets.

**Other considerations**

* Both test cases use `Math.random()` to generate random values, which may affect the results due to randomness in performance.
* The counter variable `check` in the array test case is used only for testing purposes and does not affect the actual performance measurement.

**Libraries and special JS features**

In this benchmark, no specific library or syntax is being tested. However, note that Set objects are a built-in JavaScript data structure, and arrays are also native to JavaScript.

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches using libraries or specialized techniques (e.g., using `Map` instead of `Set`), we can discuss those as well!

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set	53.2 Ops/sec
arr	81.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set.add test2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set vs arr

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

set

arr

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):