Benchmark: new set vs array includes

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.includes(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

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 and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using an array's `includes()` method versus creating a new Set object from the same array, and then checking if a specific element (1855) exists in it. The test case compares the execution times of these two approaches.

**Options compared:**

1. **Array's `includes()` method**: This is the first approach. It checks if a specified value (`1855`) exists in the array.
2. **Creating a new Set object and checking its existence**: The second approach involves creating a Set object from the array and then checking if the element (`1855`) exists in it using the `has()` method.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Array's `includes()` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple to implement.
		+ Fast, as it only requires a linear search through the array.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow for very large arrays (O(n) complexity).
2. **Creating a new Set object and checking its existence**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster for large arrays, as Set operations have an average time complexity of O(1) due to hash-based lookup.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating a new object, which can be slower than using the array's `includes()` method.

**Other considerations:**

* The test case assumes that the array is randomly generated with values from 0 to 1999, which might skew the results if the optimal approach depends on the distribution of numbers.
* The benchmark does not account for the cost of creating and garbage-collecting the Set object, as this can vary depending on JavaScript engine and runtime environment.

**Library or special JS feature:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that using a library like `lodash` might provide an optimized implementation for the `includes()` method, which could potentially change the outcome of the benchmark.

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, consider using a testing framework and ensuring your code is well-optimized for performance.

**Other alternatives:**

* Using other data structures, such as `Map`, to store unique elements instead of an array.
* Optimizing the `includes()` method implementation for specific use cases or edge cases (e.g., checking if an element exists in a sorted array).
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or runtime environments.

To run this benchmark yourself, you would:

1. Create an empty array (`array`) and populate it with 2000 elements using a loop.
2. Implement the two test cases: one for `includes()` and one for creating a Set object and checking its existence.
3. Run each test case multiple times and measure the execution time.
4. Compare the results to determine which approach is faster in your specific environment.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.84 Safari/537.36 HBPC/12.1.3.306

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
set	26306.1 Ops/sec
array	15092034.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

new set vs array includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: set vs array

Created: 5 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 26 days ago):