Benchmark: if comparison to array.includes

Tests:

case1
const foo = 419; if (foo === 401 || foo === 419) { }
case2
const foo = 419; if ([401,419].includes(foo)) { }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
case1
case2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is empty, but we can infer that it's supposed to be filled with some code snippet that will be executed in different contexts. Since it's empty, I'll move on to the individual test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

We have two test cases:

1. `case1`: This test case uses a simple if statement comparison: `if (foo === 401 || foo === 419) { ... }`
2. `case2`: This test case uses the `includes()` method on an array to achieve the same result as `case1`: `if ([401,419].includes(foo)) { ... }`

**Comparison**
The comparison being tested is between two approaches:

* A simple if statement comparison (`foo === 401 || foo === 419`)
* Using the `includes()` method on an array (`[401,419].includes(foo)`)

**Pros and Cons**

* **Simple If Statement Comparison:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to read and understand
		- Fast execution ( likely a simple lookup in memory)
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance issues if the values are large or if there are many values being checked
		- Not as concise as other approaches
* **Using `includes()` Method:**
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable code
		- Works for arrays of any size, not just small values
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower than a simple if statement comparison (due to the overhead of searching an array)
		- Not as intuitive as other approaches

**Libraries and Features**
Neither of these test cases uses a specific library or feature. The `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript function, and the simple if statement comparison doesn't rely on any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**
There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used here. Both approaches are straightforward and easy to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be tested in place of these two:

* Using `in` operator instead of `includes()`: `if (401 in foo || 419 in foo) { ... }`
* Using a switch statement: `switch (foo) { case 401: // ... case 419: // ... default: // ... }`
* Using a function with multiple return statements: `function checkFoo(foo) { if (foo === 401 || foo === 419) return true; return false; };`

These alternatives would provide additional insights into performance, conciseness, and code readability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.79 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
case1	568542720.0 Ops/sec
case2	550570688.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

if comparison to array.includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: case1 vs case2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

case1

case2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):