Benchmark: someincludestest

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];

Tests:

includes
var result = array.includes('d');
indexOf
var result = array.indexOf('d') > -1
some
var result = array.some(arr => arr === 'd')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
indexOf
some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes	16298771.0 Ops/sec
indexOf	13101632.0 Ops/sec
some	14539095.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small code snippet designed to measure the performance of a specific operation or function. In this case, there are three benchmark definitions:

1. `var result = array.includes('d');`
2. `var result = array.indexOf('d') > -1`
3. `var result = array.some(arr => arr === 'd')`

These benchmarks test the performance of different methods for searching an element in a fixed-size array.

**Options Compared**

The three benchmark definitions are comparing the following options:

* Array methods:
	+ `includes()`: Returns `true` if an element with the specified value exists in the array.
	+ `indexOf()`: Returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or `-1` if not found.
	+ `some()`: Returns `true` if at least one element in the array matches the provided callback function.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

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

* `includes()`:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May not be as fast as other methods for large arrays or arrays with many duplicate elements.
* `indexOf()`:
	+ Pros: Can return an index value, which can be useful in some cases.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `includes()` due to the overhead of finding and returning an index.
* `some()`:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `includes()` for arrays with many elements, as it stops iterating as soon as a match is found.
	+ Cons: Returns a boolean value (`true` or `false`) instead of the actual element.

**Library**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly use any libraries. However, they do rely on built-in JavaScript array methods.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions. They only utilize standard JavaScript syntax and built-in array methods.

**Other Alternatives**

For larger arrays or more complex search operations, other alternatives might include:

* Using `filter()` to create a new array with matching elements
* Using `reduce()` to iterate over the array and accumulate results
* Utilizing specialized libraries like Lodash or Ramda for array manipulation

However, these alternatives may not be necessary for small-scale benchmarking tests like this one.

**Device-Specific Considerations**

The benchmark results are reported for a specific browser (Chrome 105) on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device. This implies that the test was run on a desktop environment with a relatively modern operating system. The results might not be representative of other devices, browsers, or platforms.

Overall, this benchmarking setup is designed to measure the performance differences between three simple array search methods in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

someincludestest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs indexOf vs some

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

indexOf

some

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):