Benchmark: Array.includes vs String.includes vs Array.includes sorted

Script Preparation code:

var testArray = "org:accounting:manage,org:admin:manage,org:customerservice:manage,org:franchisesales:manage,org:sales:manage,org:telemarketing:manage".split(",");
var testArraySorted = "org:accounting:manage,org:admin:manage,org:customerservice:manage,org:franchisesales:manage,org:sales:manage,org:telemarketing:manage".split(",").sort();
var testString = "org:accounting:manage,org:admin:manage,org:customerservice:manage,org:franchisesales:manage,org:sales:manage,org:telemarketing:manage";

Tests:

Array.includes
const testStrFirst = 'org:sales:manage'; testArray.includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'org:customerservice:manage'; testArray.includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'org:sales:write'; testArray.includes(testStrNotMatch);
String.includes
const testStrFirst = 'org:sales:manage'; testString.includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'org:customerservice:manage'; testString.includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'org:sales:write'; testString.includes(testStrNotMatch);
Array.includes sorted
const testStrFirst = 'org:sales:manage'; testArraySorted.includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'org:customerservice:manage'; testArraySorted.includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'org:sales:write'; testArraySorted.includes(testStrNotMatch);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
String.includes
Array.includes sorted

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 benchmark and its components.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different ways to check if a string is included in an array: `Array.includes`, `String.includes` (which uses `Array.prototype.includes`), and `Array.includes sorted` (which sorts the array before performing the lookup). The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

1. **Array.includes**: This test case checks if two strings (`testStrFirst` and `testStrSecond`) are included in the `testArray`. It also checks if a third string (`testStrNotMatch`) is not included.
2. **String.includes**: This test case uses the `String.prototype.includes` method to check if the same two strings (`testStrFirst` and `testStrSecond`) are included in the same string (`testString`). It also checks if a third string (`testStrNotMatch`) is not included.
3. **Array.includes sorted**: This test case sorts the `testArray` before performing the lookup to check if the same two strings (`testStrFirst` and `testStrSecond`) are included in the sorted array.

**Library Used**

In all three test cases, the `includes` method is used, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard. However, the first two test cases use `String.prototype.includes`, which is a wrapper around `Array.prototype.includes`. The third test case uses `Array.prototype.includes` directly.

**Special JS Feature**

None of the test cases rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is required for the `includes` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array.includes**: This approach sorts the array before performing the lookup, which can lead to a performance improvement if the array is already sorted.
	* Pros: Can be faster when the array is already sorted.
	* Cons: Requires extra memory to store the sorted array and may incur additional overhead due to sorting.
2. **String.includes**: This approach uses `Array.prototype.includes` to check if the string contains a specific substring, which can lead to a performance improvement if the string is large.
	* Pros: Can be faster for large strings due to optimized implementation in WebKit-based browsers.
	* Cons: May not work as expected with non-ASCII characters or non-English strings.
3. **Array.includes sorted**: This approach sorts the array before performing the lookup, which can lead to a performance improvement if the array is already sorted.
	* Pros: Can be faster when the array is already sorted and the strings are comparable.
	* Cons: Requires extra memory to store the sorted array and may incur additional overhead due to sorting.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Use `indexOf` instead of `includes`:** While `includes` is generally faster than `indexOf`, it's not always the case. In some cases, using `indexOf` might be slightly faster due to optimizations in WebKit-based browsers.
2. **Use `Map` instead of arrays:** If you're working with a large number of unique strings, using a `Map` data structure can provide faster lookup times than using an array.
3. **Use a custom implementation:** Depending on your specific use case and requirements, you might be able to create a custom implementation that provides better performance than the built-in `includes` method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more code and effort to implement, but they can provide significant performance improvements in certain scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:127.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/127.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	16226287.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	1205766784.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes sorted	16899906.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes vs String.includes vs Array.includes sorted (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs String.includes vs Array.includes sorted

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

String.includes

Array.includes sorted

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):