Benchmark: set.get(with new set) vs native include vs lodash include

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = []
for(var i = 0; i < 999999; i++) {
	arr.push(Math.random())
}

Tests:

lodash includes
_.includes(arr, Math.random())
native includes
arr.includes(Math.random())
set. has
var demoSet = new Set(arr);demoSet.has(Math.random())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash includes
native includes
set. has

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, compares the performance of three different approaches to check if an element exists in an array: native includes, Lodash's `includes` function, and the `has` method of JavaScript's built-in `Set` data structure.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Native Includes**: This approach uses the native `includes` method on the array, which checks for membership in a sequence.
2. **Lodash Includes**: This approach uses Lodash's `includes` function, which is a utility function that checks if an element exists in an array.
3. **Set.has**: This approach creates a new `Set` instance from the array and then uses the `has` method to check for membership.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native Includes**
	* Pros:
		+ Fastest and most efficient approach (no additional function call overhead).
		+ Built-in method, so no additional library dependency.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as readable or maintainable as other approaches (e.g., `includes` method can make the code harder to understand).
2. **Lodash Includes**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable than native includes (clearly conveys intent of checking for membership in an array).
		+ Provides a standardized way of doing array checks across different JavaScript environments.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower than native includes due to the function call overhead.
		+ Requires additional library dependency (Lodash).
3. **Set.has**
	* Pros:
		+ Most readable and maintainable approach (clearly conveys intent of checking for membership in a set).
		+ Can be more efficient than native includes if the array is very large, since it uses a data structure that can take advantage of caching.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating a new `Set` instance from the array, which may incur additional overhead (e.g., memory allocation, garbage collection).

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark creates a large array with random elements to simulate real-world scenarios and minimize the impact of small variations in array sizes.
* The Lodash library is included via a CDN link to ensure that the test runs consistently across different environments.

**Library and Syntax Used**

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures. In this benchmark, Lodash's `includes` function is used to check if an element exists in an array.
* No special JavaScript features or syntax are used beyond the standard language.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to checking for membership in an array, consider:

1. **Array.prototype.indexOf()**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value, or -1 if the value is not found.
2. **Array.prototype.includes()** (ES6+): This method checks if a value exists in an array and returns a boolean indicating whether it does or not.
3. **custom implementation**: You can also implement your own custom function to check for membership in an array, which may provide better performance or customization options depending on your specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash includes	1059.0 Ops/sec
native includes	6785.0 Ops/sec
set. has	12.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set.get(with new set) vs native include vs lodash include (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash includes vs native includes vs set. has

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash includes

native includes

set. has

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):