Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes 2

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array.from({ length: 200 }).map((_, i) => i);
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(9)
has
return b.has(9)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
has

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 11_2_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.82 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Mac OS X 11.2.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	14452458.0 Ops/sec
has	12754246.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case that compares the performance of two different methods: `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()`. The test creates an array `a` with 200 elements, generates a new set `b` from the array, and then measures the execution time it takes to check if an element (`9`) is present in both arrays using these two methods.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `Array.includes()`: This method checks if a specified value (in this case, `9`) exists in the array. It returns `true` if the value is found and `false` otherwise.
2. `Set.has()`: This method checks if an element exists in the set. It returns `true` if the element is present and `false` otherwise.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. `Array.includes()`:
	* Pros: Widely supported, easy to use, and efficient for most use cases.
	* Cons: Can be slower than `Set.has()` when dealing with large datasets, as it iterates over the entire array to check if the element is present.
2. `Set.has()`: 
	* Pros: Faster than `Array.includes()` for large datasets, as it uses a hash table data structure that allows for efficient lookups.
	* Cons: Less widely supported and may require additional setup (e.g., creating an instance of `Set`), which can make the code less readable.

**Library**

The test case does not explicitly mention any libraries. However, since it's using `Array.from()` to create a new array from an object, it implies that the test is running in a modern JavaScript environment where `Array.prototype.from()` is supported.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark test case. It only uses standard JavaScript concepts and methods.

**Other alternatives**

If the test case were to use alternative approaches, some options could include:

1. Using `indexOf()` instead of `includes()`: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value if it exists, or `-1` otherwise. While it provides more information than `includes()`, it may be slower for large datasets.
2. Using a custom data structure: Instead of using an array and a set, the test could use a custom data structure, such as a balanced binary search tree, to compare the performance of different lookup methods.
3. Using parallel or concurrent execution: The test could be modified to run multiple iterations concurrently, which could potentially speed up the execution time.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark test case and may not provide a fair comparison with the original `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()` approaches.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs has

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

has

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):