Benchmark: set vs array includestratsatsrats

Script Preparation code:

var array=[];
for(let i=0; i<2000;i++){
    array[i] = i;
}

Tests:

set
var set = new Set(array); set.has(1855);
array
array.indexOf(1855);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
set
array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set	23578.1 Ops/sec
array	3958803.5 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 JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is a simple script that creates an array of 2000 elements, where each element is its index in the array. Then, it tests two different approaches:

1. Creating a new Set object from the array (`var set = new Set(array);`) and checking if the number 1855 is present in the set using the `has` method.
2. Using the `indexOf` method to search for the number 1855 in the original array.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Creating a Set object from an array
* Using the `indexOf` method on an array

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Creating a Set Object from an Array**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster lookup times, especially for large datasets (because Set objects use a hash table data structure)
		+ Reduces memory usage compared to storing all elements in an array
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional memory allocation for the Set object
		+ May be slower if the set needs to be very large (due to the overhead of creating and managing the Set object)
2. **Using the `indexOf` Method on an Array**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation
		+ No additional memory allocation required
	* Cons:
		+ Slower lookup times, especially for large datasets (because array search algorithms have a linear time complexity of O(n))
		+ May cause performance issues if the array is very large

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, it's worth noting that the `Set` object is a native JavaScript data structure introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It provides fast lookup times for its elements and is often used to implement set-based data structures.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not rely on any experimental or upcoming features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using the `Array.prototype.includes` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) instead of `indexOf`
* Creating an object with the number as a key and checking if it exists
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for set operations

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide significant performance improvements over the original Set-based approach or `indexOf` method.

Related benchmarks:

set vs array includestratsatsrats (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set vs array

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

set

array

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):