Benchmark: includes vs map - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

includes
var CONTINENTAL_STATES_ARRAY = [ 'AK', 'AL', 'AZ', 'AR', 'CA', 'CO', 'CT', 'DE', 'DC', 'FL', 'GA', 'HI', 'ID', 'IL', 'IN', 'IA', 'KS', 'KY', 'LA', 'ME', 'MD', 'MA', 'MI', 'MN', 'MS', 'MO', 'MT', 'NE', 'NV', 'NH', 'NJ', 'NM', 'NY', 'NC', 'ND', 'OH', 'OK', 'OR', 'PA', 'RI', 'SC', 'SD', 'TN', 'TX', 'UT', 'VT', 'VA', 'WA', 'WV', 'WI', 'WY', ]; var found = false; if (CONTINENTAL_STATES_ARRAY.includes('WY')) { found = true; }
map
var CONTINENTAL_STATES_MAP = { 'AK': true, 'AL': true, 'AZ': true, 'AR': true, 'CA': true, 'CO': true, 'CT': true, 'DE': true, 'DC': true, 'FL': true, 'GA': true, 'HI': true, 'ID': true, 'IL': true, 'IN': true, 'IA': true, 'KS': true, 'KY': true, 'LA': true, 'ME': true, 'MD': true, 'MA': true, 'MI': true, 'MN': true, 'MS': true, 'MO': true, 'MT': true, 'NE': true, 'NV': true, 'NH': true, 'NJ': true, 'NM': true, 'NY': true, 'NC': true, 'ND': true, 'OH': true, 'OK': true, 'OR': true, 'PA': true, 'RI': true, 'SC': true, 'SD': true, 'TN': true, 'TX': true, 'UT': true, 'VT': true, 'VA': true, 'WA': true, 'WV': true, 'WI': true, 'WY': true, }; var found = false; if (CONTINENTAL_STATES_MAP['WY']) { found = true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a simple JavaScript script that checks if a specific state ('WY') exists in an array or object. The script has two versions:

1. `includes`: Uses the `includes()` method to check if the string `'WY'` exists in the `CONTINENTAL_STATES_ARRAY`.
2. `map`: Uses the `map()` function to create a new array with boolean values indicating whether each state matches, and then checks if the value for `'WY'` is truthy.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared are:

1. **Using the `includes()` method**: This method iterates over the array until it finds the specified element or reaches the end of the array.
2. **Using the `map()` function**: This function creates a new array with boolean values indicating whether each state matches, and then returns an object with a single property (in this case, `'WY'`) whose value is determined by the condition.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`includes()` method**:
	* Pros: Shorter code, simpler to understand.
	* Cons: May have performance issues for large arrays, as it iterates over the entire array.
2. **`map()` function**:
	* Pros: More efficient for large arrays, as it only creates a new array with the results of the condition, rather than iterating over the entire original array.
	* Cons: Longer code, more complex to understand.

In general, if you need to perform this check on a small to medium-sized array, the `includes()` method might be sufficient. However, for larger arrays or performance-critical applications, using the `map()` function can provide better performance.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, there is no specific library being used beyond the built-in JavaScript `Array` object and its methods (`includes()`, `map()`).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6+ syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Using a `Set`**: You can create a `Set` from the array and then check if `'WY'` exists in it.
2. **Using a regular expression**: You can use a regular expression to search for the state in the array or object.
3. **Using a custom function**: You can write a custom function that iterates over the array or object using a loop, rather than relying on built-in methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the `includes()` method and `map()` function used in the benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	736385536.0 Ops/sec
map	787591360.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

includes vs map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs map

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):