Benchmark: incl/set - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

includes
[65446, 7863, 344, 689, 7980].includes(689)
set
new Set([65446, 7863, 344, 689, 7980]).has(689)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two JavaScript methods: `includes()` and `has()` (in the context of Sets). These methods are used for membership testing, which means they check if a specified value is present in an array or set.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `Array.includes()`: This method checks if a specified value (`689`) is present in an array.
2. `Set.has()`: This method checks if a specified value (`689`) is present in a Set data structure.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `Array.includes()`:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported across browsers and JavaScript engines.
		- Simple to implement and understand.
		- Fast for small arrays.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slow for large arrays due to the need to iterate through each element.
		- May not perform well with arrays of large numbers or strings, as it uses a linear search algorithm.
* `Set.has()`: This method is generally faster than `Array.includes()` for several reasons:

+ Pros:
		- Optimized for membership testing in Sets.
		- Can take advantage of the underlying data structure's caching and indexing.
		- Generally faster, especially for large datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be supported by older browsers or JavaScript engines.
		- Requires a Set object to be created, which may incur overhead.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `Set` library is used. A Set is a data structure that stores unique values and provides fast membership testing through methods like `has()`. The purpose of using a Set here is to compare the performance of `Set.has()` with other array-based methods.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code snippets only use standard JavaScript methods (`includes()`, `Set.has()`) and data structures (arrays, Sets).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative membership testing methods, here are a few options:

* `Array.prototype.every()` with a predicate function: This method checks if all elements of an array pass a certain test. You can use it to check for membership by creating a predicate function that returns `true` if the value is present.
* `Array.prototype.some()` with a predicate function: Similar to `every()`, but returns `true` as soon as any element passes the test.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to using built-in methods like `includes()` and `Set.has()`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	72967680.0 Ops/sec
set	4519441.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

incl/set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs set

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

set

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):