Benchmark: === vs .includes

Tests:

===
const A = 'A'; const B = 'B'; const arr = new Array(10000); arr[arr.length-1] = A; for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++) { if (arr[i] === A || arr[i] === B) { break; } }
includes
const A = 'A'; const B = 'B'; const arr = new Array(10000); arr[arr.length-1] = A; for(let i=0; i<arr.length; i++) { if ([A,B].includes(arr[i])) { break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
===
includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different ways of performing string comparisons in JavaScript:

1. Using the `===` operator (strict equality)
2. Using the `Array.includes()` method

**Options Compared**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

* Option 1: `===` operator
* Option 2: `Array.includes()`

The benchmark is trying to determine which of these two methods is faster.

**Pros and Cons**

**Option 1: `===` operator**

Pros:

* Generally faster for simple string comparisons
* More predictable behavior, as it's a built-in operator that only checks for exact equality

Cons:

* Can be slower when dealing with large datasets or complex data structures
* May not handle cases where the comparison involves non-string values (e.g., numbers, booleans)

**Option 2: `Array.includes()` method**

Pros:

* More flexible and efficient for searching arrays of strings
* Handles edge cases like null or undefined values

Cons:

* Can be slower than a simple `===` operator for small datasets
* May have performance implications when dealing with large arrays or complex data structures

**Library/Functionality Used**

In the provided benchmark, we don't see any libraries being explicitly used. However, the `Array.includes()` method is part of the built-in JavaScript API.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code uses basic JavaScript syntax and does not include any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript APIs like Web Workers or WebAssembly.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for string comparisons in JavaScript, here are a few options:

* Using `String.prototype.indexOf()` method
* Implementing a custom string comparison function using regular expressions
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming and string manipulation
* Leveraging modern JavaScript APIs like Web Workers or WebAssembly for parallel processing

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

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/90.0.4430.212 Safari/537.36 OPR/76.0.4017.227

Browser/OS: Opera 76 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
===	3444.7 Ops/sec
includes	4571.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

=== vs .includes (version: 0)

Compare perfomance between === operator and Array.includes

Comparing performance of: === vs includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

===

includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):