Benchmark: === vs includes - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var stringToMatch = 'hello';

Tests:

Array.includes
[ 'hello'].includes(stringToMatch)
Or chain
stringToMatch === 'hello'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Or chain

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition Explanation**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches:

1. Using `Array.includes()` to check if an element exists in an array.
2. Using a strict equality check (`===`) to compare a value with a string literal.

In essence, this benchmark tests how much slower or faster each approach is compared to the other.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Or chain (Array.includes())**: This method uses the `includes()` method on an array to check if a specific element exists within it.
* **Strict equality check (`===`)**: This method uses a simple equality comparison between two values, in this case, comparing a string variable with a string literal.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Or chain (Array.includes())**:
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code
		+ Can be more efficient for larger arrays or datasets, as it uses an optimized algorithm under the hood
	* Cons:
		+ May incur a small overhead due to method call and array lookup
2. **Strict equality check (`===`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and lightweight, with minimal overhead
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and maintainable code, as it's more prone to typos or mistakes
		+ May be slower for larger arrays or datasets due to the need for a full equality comparison

**Library Used**

None. This benchmark doesn't use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (Optional)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Performance**: The benchmark is designed to measure performance, so it's essential to consider factors like cache efficiency, branch prediction, and instruction-level parallelism.
* **Real-world scenarios**: It's worth noting that these two approaches might have different implications in real-world scenarios. For example, using `Array.includes()` might be more suitable for searching large datasets or arrays, while a strict equality check (`===`) might be sufficient for simple value comparisons.

**Alternative Approaches**

In addition to the two options being compared (Or chain and Strict equality check), other approaches could include:

* **String interpolation**: Instead of using `Array.includes()`, you could use string interpolation to concatenate strings with the matched element. This approach would likely incur more overhead due to the creation of a new string object.
* **Regular expressions**: You could use regular expressions (regex) to search for patterns within the array, which might be faster than `Array.includes()` but more complex and less readable.

These alternative approaches are not directly related to the original benchmark definition and would require additional setup and testing.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	78011960.0 Ops/sec
Or chain	727692800.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

=== vs includes (version: 0)

how much of a performance deficit you can expect from using Array.includes instead of strict equal

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Or chain

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Or chain

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):