Benchmark: array indexOf vs includes vs some - 100 numbers, find middle

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array(100).map((el, idx) => idx.toString());

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf('50') !== 1
Includes
array.includes('50')
some
array.some(v => v === '50')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically designed to compare the performance of three different methods for checking if an array contains a specific value: `indexOf`, `includes`, and `some`.

**Methods Being Compared**

1. **`array.indexOf(value)`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value in the array, or -1 if it's not found.
2. **`array.includes(value)`**: This method returns a boolean indicating whether the specified value is present in the array.
3. **`array.some(predicate)`**: This method returns a boolean indicating whether at least one element in the array satisfies the predicate (a function that takes an element and returns a boolean).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`indexOf`**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Returns the index of the first occurrence, which might not be what you want if there are multiple matches. Also, it can throw an error if the value is not found.
2. **`includes`**:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and easy to read. It's also more explicit than `indexOf`, as it returns a boolean result.
	* Cons: Can be slower than `indexOf` for very large arrays or when using strict equality checks (e.g., `===`).
3. **`some`**:
	* Pros: Allows you to extract the value from the array if it's found, which can be useful in certain scenarios. It's also more concise than writing a custom loop.
	* Cons: Can be slower than `indexOf` or `includes`, especially for very large arrays.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the popular utility library Lodash (version 4.17.5), specifically its `lodash.includes()` function, which is used in the "Includes" test case.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some browsers might optimize certain methods more than others due to their implementation or caching mechanisms.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need a faster alternative to `indexOf` for very large arrays, you could consider using:

1. **`binarySearch()`**: A method that uses a binary search algorithm to find the index of an element in an array.
2. **Custom loop**: Writing a custom loop that iterates over the array using a fast indexing technique, such as a pointer or a hashmap.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more boilerplate code and may not be as efficient as the built-in methods.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its various components!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
IndexOf	6367136.5 Ops/sec
Includes	16217671.0 Ops/sec
some	5846000.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array indexOf vs includes vs some - 100 numbers, find middle (version: 0)

performance comparison of ways to find if an array contains a value

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs some

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):