Benchmark: Checking for equality list wise or set wise

Tests:

Equality by checking each member
let list = []; for (let j = 0; j < 3; j++) { for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { list.push(i); } } const target = 67; for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { if (list[i] == target) return true; } return false;
Equality by constructing set
let list = []; for (let j = 0; j < 3; j++) { for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { list.push(i); } } const target = 67; new Set(list).has(target)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Equality by checking each member
Equality by constructing set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_1) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.0.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 13 on Mac OS X 10.15.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Equality by checking each member	1128058.0 Ops/sec
Equality by constructing set	28925.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a complex task, and MeasureThat.net provides a great platform for testing various approaches.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark definition tests two approaches to check if an element exists in an array (or list):

1. **Equality by checking each member**: This approach iterates through the entire array to find the target value.
2. **Equality by constructing set**: This approach creates a new Set object from the array and then checks if the target value is present in the Set.

**Options comparison**

Both approaches have pros and cons:

1. **Equality by checking each member**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ O(n) time complexity, where n is the length of the array. This means that as the array grows, the time taken to check for an element increases linearly.
		+ May not be efficient for large arrays or arrays with many unique values.
2. **Equality by constructing set**:
	* Pros: O(1) average time complexity for lookups in a Set data structure. This means that even for very large sets, the time taken to check for an element remains relatively constant.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating a new Set object, which can be memory-intensive for large arrays.
		+ May not work as expected if the array contains duplicate values (since Sets only store unique values).

**Library usage**

In the provided benchmark definition, neither of the approaches uses any external libraries. However, in real-world applications, you might use libraries like `lodash` or `Array.prototype.includes()` to implement these approaches.

**Special JS features/syntax**

Neither of the approaches explicitly uses special JavaScript features like closures, async/await, or promises. The code is straightforward and focused on testing the equality check performance.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for checking if an element exists in an array include:

1. **Array.prototype.includes()**: This method was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides a more efficient way to check if an element exists in an array, especially when dealing with large arrays.
2. **Regular expressions**: You can use regular expressions to search for the target value in the array.
3. **Binary search**: If you know that the array is sorted or has a predictable order, you can use binary search to find the target value.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may be more suitable depending on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Checking for equality list wise or set wise (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Equality by checking each member vs Equality by constructing set

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Equality by checking each member

Equality by constructing set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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