Benchmark: some vs includes wqerwqerasxfq

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
Array.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.includes(0) : withoutZero.includes(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.includes

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 dive into the explanation of the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring JavaScript performance. It consists of two main parts: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`.

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code is executed only in the browser, which prepares the environment for the test. In this case, it creates two arrays, `hasZero` and `withoutZero`, each containing 10,000 random integers. The arrays are used to test the performance of JavaScript arrays.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code is not provided in the example, but it's likely that it contains HTML markup for rendering a webpage or a UI component.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Array.some**: This test case measures the performance of the `some()` method on an array. The method returns `true` if at least one element in the array satisfies the provided condition.
2. **Array.includes**: This test case measures the performance of the `includes()` method on an array. The method returns `true` if the specified value is found in the array.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

* `hasZero.some()`
* `hasZero.includes(0)`

Both methods achieve the same result: checking if at least one element in the array is equal to 0. However, they have different implementation differences.

1. **`some()` method**: This method iterates over the array and returns `true` as soon as it finds an element that satisfies the condition.
2. **`includes()` method**: This method uses a linear search algorithm to find the specified value in the array. It's generally faster than the `some()` method for small arrays, but slower for larger arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **`some()` method**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster for large arrays.
	+ Cons: May be slower for small arrays due to overhead.
* **`includes()` method**:
	+ Pros: Faster for small arrays, but can be slow for larger arrays.
	+ Cons: More memory-intensive and may require more CPU cycles.

**Library**

In this benchmark, the `Array.prototype.some()` and `Array.prototype.includes()` methods are used. These methods are part of the ECMAScript standard and are implemented by most modern JavaScript engines.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses only standard JavaScript syntax and does not rely on any advanced features like async/await, promises, or classes.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in measuring the performance of other array methods or libraries, here are some alternatives:

* `Array.prototype.find()`, `Array.prototype.findIndex()`, `Array.prototype.forEach()`
* Other array implementations, such as **for...of**, `Array.prototype.every()`, and `Array.prototype.lastIndexOf()`

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	123242.2 Ops/sec
Array.includes	2436934.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

some vs includes wqerwqerasxfq (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.includes

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.includes

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):