Benchmark: test js includes and some

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]

Tests:

includes
primes.includes(47);
some
primes.some(e => e === 47);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmarking process involves preparing a script, running it multiple times, and measuring its performance. In this case, we have a benchmark with two test cases: `includes` and `some`.

**Test Cases**

The first test case is the `includes` method:
```json
"Benchmark Definition": "primes.includes(47);"
```
This test case checks how fast the `includes` method can search for an element (in this case, 47) within an array of prime numbers (`primes`). The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of the JavaScript engine's array methods.

The second test case is the `some` method:
```json
"Benchmark Definition": "primes.some(e => e === 47);"
```
This test case checks how fast the `some` method can iterate over an array and check if any element matches a condition (in this case, equality with 47). The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of the JavaScript engine's array iteration methods.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

1. **includes**: This option uses the `includes` method to search for an element in an array.
2. **some**: This option uses the `some` method to iterate over an array and check if any element matches a condition.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **includes**:
	+ Pros: Easy to read and understand, straightforward implementation.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `some` due to the additional overhead of searching for an exact match.
* **some**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `includes` because it only checks for equality without searching for a specific element.
	+ Cons: May be less readable and more prone to errors due to the use of callback functions.

**Library**

In this benchmark, the `primes` array is not created using any library. Instead, it's defined as a simple JavaScript array:
```javascript
var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97];
```
**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and easy to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark using alternative approaches, some options could be:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach**: Instead of `some`, you could use `forEach` with a callback function that checks for equality.
2. **Caching**: You could cache the result of the `includes` method or create a cached version of the `primes` array to reduce overhead.
3. **Parallel Execution**: You could execute multiple iterations of both test cases in parallel using web workers or other parallel execution techniques.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and informative way to compare the performance of two common JavaScript methods: `includes` and `some`.

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/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	14214756.0 Ops/sec
some	12628934.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test js includes and some (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs some

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):