var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
return a.includes(9)
return new Set(a).has(9)
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
includes | |
lookup |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
includes | 2943542.2 Ops/sec |
lookup | 709635.9 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.
The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of two approaches: includes
and set.has
. The purpose of this benchmark is to determine which approach is faster for searching an element within an array on the fly.
Options Compared:
9
) in the provided array (a
). It returns a boolean indicating whether the value is present.a
converted to a Set) and checks if a specific value (9
) exists within it. It returns a boolean indicating whether the value is present.Pros and Cons of Each Approach:
Array.includes
for large datasets because Set operations are optimized under the hood.Library:
includes
and Set.has
). However, if you were to add additional functionality or optimize performance further, you might consider using libraries like fast-sets, which provide optimized Set operations.Special JS Feature/Syntax:
Other Alternatives:
In summary, this benchmark test compares the efficiency of Array.includes
and Set.has
methods for searching elements within arrays on the fly. While both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, Set operations are generally more efficient for large datasets due to optimized under-the-hood implementations.