Benchmark: Array.includes vs Set.has vas Map retrive

Script Preparation code:

var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
var b = new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]);
var c = new Map([[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 3], [4, 4], [5, 5], [6, 6], [7, 7], [8, 8], [9, 9], [10, 10]]);

Tests:

Array includes
return a.includes(9);
Set has
return b.has(9);
map retrive data 789456123230
return c[9];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array includes
Set has
map retrive data 789456123230

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array includes	31449826.0 Ops/sec
Set has	31802740.0 Ops/sec
map retrive data 789456123230	28716176.0 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 benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests three different approaches to retrieve an element from a sequence: `Array.includes()`, `Set.has()`, and `Map.get()` for a Map with a fixed key. The goal is to compare their performance, efficiency, and consistency across different browsers and devices.

**Options Compared**

1. **Array.includes()**: This method checks if a specific value exists in an array.
2. **Set.has()**: This method checks if a specific value exists in a Set data structure.
3. **Map.get()**: This method retrieves the value associated with a given key from a Map.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array.includes()**:
	* Pros: Widely supported, easy to use, and suitable for arrays containing unique elements.
	* Cons: Can be slower than Set.has() and Map.get() for large datasets, as it iterates through the array.
2. **Set.has()**:
	* Pros: Faster than Array.includes() for large datasets, as Sets use hash tables for efficient lookups.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for arrays containing duplicate elements, as Sets only store unique values.
3. **Map.get()**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for looking up keys in a Map, especially when the key is known beforehand.
	* Cons: Requires knowing the exact key to retrieve a value, which might not always be possible.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark cases use any external libraries. The script preparation code only involves creating arrays, sets, and maps using native JavaScript constructors.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to retrieve elements from sequences, consider the following:

* **Array.indexOf()**: Similar to Array.includes(), but returns the index of the first occurrence instead of a boolean value.
* **Set.size**: Returns the number of unique elements in a Set.
* **Map.keys() / Map.values() / Map.entries()**: Iterate over keys, values, or key-value pairs in a Map.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to the methods tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes vs Set.has vas Map retrive (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array includes vs Set has vs map retrive data 789456123230

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array includes

Set has

map retrive data 789456123230

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):