Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (1kkk)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [...Array(1000000).keys()];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

array.includes
return a.includes(900000)
Set.has
return b.has(900000)
array.indexOf
return a.indexOf(900000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array.includes
Set.has
array.indexOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case created on MeasureThat.net. The test compares three different approaches for checking if an element exists in an array:

1. `array.includes()`
2. `Set.has()`
3. `array.indexOf()` (although this one is not directly comparing to the other two, it's included as a control)

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up two arrays: `a` and `b`. `a` is an array of 1 million keys generated using `[...Array(1000000).keys()]`, while `b` is a Set created from the keys of `a`.

```javascript
var a = [...Array(1000000).keys()];
var b = new Set(a);
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that this benchmark only checks the performance of JavaScript code execution.

**Test Cases**

The test cases compare the performance of each approach:

1. `array.includes()`: Checks if an element exists in array `a` by calling `includes(900000)`.
2. `Set.has()`: Checks if an element exists in Set `b` by calling `has(900000)`.
3. `array.indexOf()`: Although not directly comparing to the other two, this test case is included for completeness.

**Results**

The latest benchmark result shows the performance data for each browser, device platform, and operating system:

| Browser | Device Platform | Operating System | ExecutionsPerSecond |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Chrome 88 | Desktop | Linux | 10794344.0 (Set.has) |
| Chrome 88 | Desktop | Linux | 876.3388671875 (array.includes) |
| Chrome 88 | Desktop | Linux | 873.6167602539062 (array.indexOf) |

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here's a comparison of the three approaches:

1. **`Set.has()`**: This approach is likely to be the fastest due to its use of hash tables, which provide constant-time performance for membership tests.
	* Pros: Fast and efficient.
	* Cons: Requires creating a Set object, which may incur additional memory overhead.
2. **`array.includes()`**: This approach uses the `includes()` method, which checks if an element exists in the array by iterating through it.
	* Pros: Easy to implement and doesn't require creating an extra data structure.
	* Cons: May be slower than `Set.has()` due to the iterative search.
3. **`array.indexOf()`**: Although not directly comparing to the other two, this test case is included for completeness. `array.indexOf()` returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified element or -1 if it's not found.
	* Pros: Can be used as an alternative to `includes()`.
	* Cons: Returns the index, which may not be desirable in all cases.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach for this use case:

* **Memory overhead**: If memory efficiency is a concern, `Set.has()` might not be the best choice due to the additional memory required for creating the Set object.
* **Browser support**: The performance data suggests that Chrome 88 is the fastest browser for all three approaches. However, it's essential to test on other browsers and devices to ensure compatibility.

In summary, `Set.has()` is likely to be the fastest approach due to its use of hash tables, but it may incur additional memory overhead. The choice between `array.includes()` and `array.indexOf()` depends on the specific requirements and preferences of the developer.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array.includes	876.3 Ops/sec
Set.has	10794344.0 Ops/sec
array.indexOf	873.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes (1kkk) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array.includes vs Set.has vs array.indexOf

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array.includes

Set.has

array.indexOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):