Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (random string values), add strings not in list, smaller list

Script Preparation code:

var a = [
    'height',
    'width',
    'maxHeight',
    'maxWidth',
    'maxHeight',
    'minWidth',
    'color',
    'bg',
    'backgroundColor',
    'opacity',
    'm',
    'mt',
    'mb',
    'mr'
];
var b = new Set(a)

var c = a.slice();
c.push('abc','def','ghi','other word', 'notinlist','123','4334232313','borderwersese');

Tests:

arr.includes
return a.includes(c[Math.floor(Math.random() * c.length)])
set.has
return b.has(c[Math.floor(Math.random() * c.length)])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arr.includes
set.has

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

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/96.0.4664.93 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
arr.includes	1843716.0 Ops/sec
set.has	1855352.0 Ops/sec

set.has vs. array.includes (random string values), add strings not in list, smaller list (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arr.includes vs set.has

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arr.includes

set.has

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A