Benchmark: equals vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var stringToMatch = 'hello';

Tests:

Array.includes
['banana', 'map', 'cloth', 'hello', 'person'].includes(stringToMatch)
Or chain
stringToMatch === 'banana'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Or chain

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 the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `Array.includes` and manually writing a chain of logical ORs.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`Array.includes`**: This approach uses the built-in `includes` method on arrays to check if a specified value exists within the array.
2. **Manual OR Chain**: This approach requires manual implementation of a loop or recursive function to iterate through the array and perform a logical OR check.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

**`Array.includes`**

Pros:

* Concise and readable code
* Built-in method is often faster and more efficient
* Reduces boilerplate code

Cons:

* May not be as flexible or customizable as manual implementation
* Can be slower for very large arrays or complex checks

**Manual OR Chain**

Pros:

* Highly customizable and flexible
* Can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements
* No reliance on built-in methods or libraries

Cons:

* More verbose and error-prone code
* Requires more manual maintenance and optimization

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `Array.includes` and manual OR chain, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If you need to perform complex checks or iterate over large arrays, manual implementation might be faster. For simple checks on smaller arrays, `Array.includes` is likely sufficient.
* **Readability**: Choose concise and readable code when possible. Manual OR chain can become unwieldy for complex conditions.
* **Maintainability**: With frequent updates to JavaScript features or libraries, consider the long-term maintainability of your implementation.

**Library/Function Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used besides the built-in `Array.includes` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript feature or syntax is mentioned in the provided benchmark. However, keep in mind that some modern JavaScript features like async/await, let, and const might impact performance or implementation complexity.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, consider:

* **Regular expressions**: For string matching and comparison.
* **Iterators**: For iterating over arrays or other data structures.
* **Custom implementations**: Using low-level JavaScript operations (e.g., `indexOf` for array indexing).

These alternatives might offer performance benefits or flexibility for specific use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	14121871.0 Ops/sec
Or chain	17262426.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

equals vs includes (version: 0)

how much of a performance deficit you can expect from using Array.includes instead of manually writing a chain of logical ORs

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Or chain

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Or chain

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):