Benchmark: Array of strings, indexOf vs includes 2

Tests:

includes
const types = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'] types.includes('e')
indexOf
const types = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'] types.indexOf('e')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. These methods are used to search for a specific value within an array.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`indexOf`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value in the array. If the value is not found, it returns -1.
2. **`includes`**: This method returns `true` if the specified value is present in the array, and `false` otherwise.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`indexOf`**:
    *   Pros: Can be more efficient when searching for a specific index or when working with arrays where indexing is necessary.
    *   Cons: May not be as straightforward to use when searching for a value without knowing its position, as it returns an index instead of a boolean result. It also has a higher time complexity (O(n)) compared to `includes`.
*   **`includes`**:
    *   Pros: More concise and expressive when searching for a value in an array. It's also more intuitive to use, especially when working with larger arrays.
    *   Cons: May be slower than `indexOf` due to its implementation and the fact that it needs to check every element in the array.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, both methods are part of the ECMAScript standard, which means they're inherently supported by JavaScript engines without any additional libraries or imports required.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's an example of using `const` for variable declaration and initialization in the scripts. `const` is a keyword that declares variables that can be reassigned only once. It's used here to declare the `types` array and initialize it with values.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare other methods or approaches, some alternatives could include:

*   Using different data structures (e.g., linked lists or trees) instead of arrays.
*   Implementing custom search algorithms for finding specific values in arrays.
*   Comparing performance using `forEach`, `filter()`, or other array methods.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 14; Mobile; rv:121.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/121.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 121 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	36818152.0 Ops/sec
indexOf	37503652.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array of strings, indexOf vs includes 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs indexOf

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

indexOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):