Benchmark: #2 Array Includes vs. Find

Script Preparation code:

var list = ['aaa', 'bbb', 'ccc'];

Tests:

Array.includes
var exists = list.includes('abc');
Array.find
var item = list.find(v => v === 'abc');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Array.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days 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, titled "#2 Array Includes vs. Find", tests the performance difference between two JavaScript array methods: `includes()` and `find()`. The benchmark is designed to measure which method is more efficient when searching for a specific element within an array.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Array.includes()`**: This method returns `true` if an array contains the specified value, or `false` otherwise.
2. **`Array.find()`**: This method returns the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function, or `undefined` if no elements satisfy it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **`Array.includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and widely supported by browsers.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `find()` for large arrays because it may require a linear search through the array.
* **`Array.find()`**:
	+ Pros: More expressive and flexible than `includes()`, allowing for more complex search conditions.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `includes()` for small arrays due to the overhead of creating and executing a callback function.

**Library/Functionality Used**

In this benchmark, no libraries or external functions are used beyond the built-in JavaScript array methods. However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers may have additional features or optimizations enabled for these methods, which could affect performance.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of `includes()` and `find()`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking to optimize array searches, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Manual indexing**: Using a manual index to access specific elements within an array.
2. **Binary search**: Implementing a binary search algorithm to find specific elements in large arrays.
3. **Sparse arrays**: Using sparse arrays (arrays with holes) to improve performance when working with large datasets.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more code and are generally less straightforward than using built-in array methods like `includes()` and `find()`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	16654104.0 Ops/sec
Array.find	17671246.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

#2 Array Includes vs. Find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Array.find

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Array.find

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):