Benchmark: Set x includes x includes (lodash)

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 = Array.from(Array(100000).keys());
var set = new Set(arr);

Tests:

set
set.has(50000);
includes
arr.includes(50000);
includes lodash
_.includes(arr, 50000);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
set
includes
includes lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is created using JSON data that defines the test cases. The main elements are:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code initializes an array `arr` with 100,000 keys (using `Array.from(Array(100000).keys())`) and creates a new Set `set` from it.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This script includes the Lodash library (`lodash.min.js`) from a CDN.
3. **Benchmark Definitions**: These are individual test cases defined in JSON format, each specifying:
	* A JavaScript expression to be executed (e.g., `set.has(50000)`)
	* A descriptive name for the test case

**Test Cases**

The three test cases being benchmarked are:

1. **set**: This test case checks if a specific value (`50000`) exists in the Set `set`.
2. **includes**: This test case checks if a specific value (`50000`) is present in the array `arr` using the `includes()` method.
3. **includes lodash**: This test case uses the Lodash library to check if a specific value (`50000`) is present in the array `arr` using the `_includes()` function.

**Approaches Compared**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Using native JavaScript methods like `Set.has()` or `Array.includes()`.
2. **Lodash**: Using the Lodash library's `_includes()` function to check for presence in an array.
3. **Native JavaScript with Set**: Creating a Set from the array and using its `has()` method to check for presence.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Faster execution, potentially more efficient use of resources.
	* Cons: May not work correctly on older browsers or with limited functionality (e.g., no support for sets).
2. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: More reliable and widely supported, can handle complex array operations.
	* Cons: Slower execution compared to native JavaScript methods, may require additional dependencies.
3. **Native JavaScript with Set**:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of using a set for fast lookups while still leveraging native JavaScript's performance.
	* Cons: Requires creating an extra data structure (the set), which can add overhead.

**Library and Purpose**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library that provides various functions for working with arrays, objects, and more. In this benchmark, the `_includes()` function is used to check if a specific value exists in an array. Lodash aims to provide a convenient and efficient way to perform common tasks without having to write custom code.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the provided test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard language support.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to benchmark alternative approaches, you could consider:

1. **Using a different library**: Alternative libraries like `underscore.js` or `ramda.js` could be used for the Lodash-based approach.
2. **Other native JavaScript methods**: Alternative methods like `indexOf()` or `every()` could be used instead of `includes()`.
3. **Custom implementations**: Implementing custom search algorithms, such as hashing or bit manipulation, to compare with the current implementation.

Keep in mind that each alternative would require modifications to the benchmark code and might not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set	11763183.0 Ops/sec
includes	40901.7 Ops/sec
includes lodash	16537.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Set x includes x includes (lodash) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set vs includes vs includes lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

set

includes

includes lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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