Benchmark: array.includes vs if &&

Tests:

if &&
const foo = 'foo'; if (foo !== 'bar' && foo !== 'baz') { return 0; } return 1;
Array.includes
const foo = 'foo'; return ['bar', 'baz'].includes(foo) ? 1 : 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if &&
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:124.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/124.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 124 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
if &&	1452187648.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes	49349368.0 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's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The test case measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. Using an `if` statement with multiple conditions (`foo !== 'bar' && foo !== 'baz'`) to check if a value is not equal to another.
2. Using the `Array.includes()` method to check if a value is present in an array.

**Options compared**

The test case compares two options:

1. **Traditional `if` statement**: This approach uses multiple conditions to check if a value meets certain criteria. In this case, it checks if the value `foo` is not equal to either `'bar'` or `'baz'`.
2. **Array `includes()` method**: This approach uses a built-in method on arrays to check if a value is present in the array.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Traditional `if` statement**:
	* Pros: Can be more flexible, allows for multiple conditions.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the additional logic, may require more memory allocations.
2. **Array `includes()` method**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported by modern browsers.
	* Cons: May not work as expected with older browsers or Edge versions.

**Other considerations**

Both approaches rely on JavaScript's dynamic typing and type coercion rules, which can lead to unexpected results in certain scenarios. Additionally, both approaches may involve additional overhead due to function call and lookup operations.

**Library used**

None of the provided code snippets use any external libraries, so there are no dependencies to consider.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test case uses a simple example that doesn't rely on any advanced JavaScript features like async/await, callbacks, or decorators. If the benchmark were to include more complex scenarios, it might require special handling of these features.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for comparing performance could include:

1. **Using a regular expression**: Instead of an `if` statement, using a regular expression to check if the value matches a certain pattern.
2. **Using a custom implementation**: Writing a custom function or algorithm to perform the same task, allowing for more control over the implementation details.
3. **Using a different data structure**: Exchanging the array with a different data structure, like an object or a set, to see how performance changes.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the benchmarking scenario.

Related benchmarks:

array.includes vs if && (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if && vs Array.includes

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if &&

Array.includes

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):