Benchmark: Array.includes() vs Set.has() for small array

Script Preparation code:

arr = ["test1", "test2"]
set = new Set(["test1", "test2"]);

Tests:

Find the second element in array
arr.includes("test2");
Find the second element in set
set.has("test2");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Find the second element in array
Find the second element in set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 124 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Find the second element in array	7191981.0 Ops/sec
Find the second element in set	7303041.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches for finding the second element in an array: `includes()` and `Set.has()`. The test cases are designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods.

**Options compared:**

1. **`arr.includes('test2')`**: This method uses the `includes()` function to check if a specific string (`'test2'`) is present in the array.
2. **`set.has('test2')`**: This method uses the `Set` data structure and its `has()` function to check if a specific value (`'test2'`) is present in the set.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **`arr.includes('test2')`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and easy to understand.
		+ Widely supported across browsers.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance issues for large arrays, as it uses a linear search algorithm.
2. **`set.has('test2')`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster than `includes()` for small to medium-sized datasets.
		+ More efficient use of memory, as sets only store unique values.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported by older browsers or those with limited JavaScript capabilities.
		+ Requires the creation of a `Set` object, which can have additional overhead.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Library usage**: The benchmark uses the `Set` library, which is a built-in feature in modern JavaScript and most web browsers. This allows developers to focus on the performance differences between the two methods rather than worrying about compatibility issues.
2. **Special JS features or syntax**: Neither of these test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for the benchmark itself.

**Alternatives:**

1. For small arrays, `arr.includes('test2')` might be a more straightforward choice due to its simplicity and widespread support.
2. For larger datasets or performance-critical applications, `set.has('test2')` could be a better option due to its efficiency and speed advantages.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of two common methods for finding elements in an array, allowing developers to make informed decisions about their code's performance and optimization strategies.

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes() vs Set.has() for small array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Find the second element in array vs Find the second element in set

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Find the second element in array

Find the second element in set

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):