Benchmark: JS test gareko hai 2

Script Preparation code:

var range = [...Array(5)].map((_, i) => i);
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'];
var value = 'g';

Tests:

Array.includes
const results = []; for (const i in range) { results.push(array.includes(value)); }
OR
const results = []; for (const i in range) { results.push('a' === value || 'b' === value || 'c' === value || 'd' === value || 'e' === value || 'f' === value); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
OR

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial in understanding the efficiency of code, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex operations.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. In this explanation, we'll break down what's being tested and compare different options, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The "Script Preparation Code" section defines two variables: `range` (an array of numbers from 0 to 4) and `array` (an array of strings). A variable `value` is also defined as a string `'g'`.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Array.includes**: This test case uses the `Array.includes()` method to check if each element in the `range` array exists in the `array`. The `value` is compared with each element using the strict equality operator (`===`). The results of these comparisons are pushed onto an empty array called `results`.

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward
* Fast lookup in arrays (on average, O(1) performance)

Cons:

* Not optimized for large datasets or complex operations
* May be slower due to the overhead of method calls

2. **OR**: This test case uses a simple OR operation (`||`) to check if `value` matches any element in the `array`. The results are pushed onto an empty array called `results`.

Pros:

* Fast and lightweight, no method call overhead
* Suitable for large datasets or complex operations

Cons:

* Less readable and maintainable than the Array.includes approach
* May be slower due to the number of comparisons (O(n))

**Library**

None.

**Special JS feature**

There is a special JavaScript syntax used in these test cases: template literals (`\r\nvar array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'];`). Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows for more readable and efficient string concatenation.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser**: The benchmark is run on Firefox 122, which might limit the results to this specific browser.
* **DevicePlatform** and **OperatingSystem**: These variables indicate that the test was run on a desktop device with Windows OS. This might impact the result due to differences in system resources or hardware.
* **ExecutionsPerSecond**: This metric measures the number of executions per second for each test case.

Alternatives:

1. Use `Array.indexOf()` instead of `Array.includes()`. While both methods are optimized, `indexOf()` is generally faster (O(1) performance).
2. Consider using a different approach, such as using a `Set` data structure to store the array elements and then checking for membership.
3. For large datasets or complex operations, consider using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler like V8 (used in Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (used in Firefox).

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches can be significant, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex operations. It's essential to carefully evaluate and optimize your code for performance in real-world scenarios.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	1850041.8 Ops/sec
OR	2567291.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS test gareko hai 2 (version: 0)

asdasd

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs OR

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

OR

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):