Benchmark: array includes ramda lodash

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]

Tests:

_.includes
_.includes(primes, 47);
array.includes
primes.includes(79);
ramda includes
R.includes

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.includes
array.includes
ramda includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of three different approaches to check if an element exists in an array:

1. `_.includes` (Ramda library): This function checks if an element is present in an array using Ramda's `includes` function.
2. `array.includes`: This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if an element is present in an array.
3. `R.includes` (Ramda library): This is another version of the includes function provided by Ramda, but with slightly different behavior.

**Options compared**

The three options are being compared to measure their performance difference:

* **Pro's of each approach:**
	+ `_.includes` and `array.includes`: These built-in JavaScript methods are likely to be fast and efficient since they're implemented in native code.
	+ `R.includes`: This Ramda function might have some overhead due to its use of a custom implementation, but it may also offer benefits like better type inference or more concise code.
* **Con's of each approach:**
	+ `_.includes` and `array.includes`: These methods require the array to be in scope, which can add extra memory allocations or garbage collection pauses depending on the context.
	+ `R.includes`: This Ramda function might not be as efficient as the built-in methods, but it could also lead to more predictable performance since it's implemented in a specific way.

**Library and its purpose**

* `lodash.js` (Lodash library): Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array processing, and more. The `_.includes` function is part of the Lodash library and is used here as a benchmarking tool.
* `ramda.min.js` (Ramda library): Ramda is another functional programming library for JavaScript that offers a more concise and expressive way to write code. The `R.includes` function is an example of how Ramda can implement common array operations in its own way.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used here. All the code looks like standard ES6+ JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few examples:

* `Array.prototype.some()` or `Array.prototype.every()`: These methods can be used as an alternative to `array.includes` since they also check for existence.
* Custom implementation using a simple loop: You could write a custom function that uses a simple loop to iterate through the array and check if the target element is present. This approach would likely be slower than the built-in methods or Ramda's includes functions, but it might give you insight into how such a function would work.

Keep in mind that this benchmark focuses on performance, so using an alternative implementation like `Array.prototype.some()` or a simple loop might skew the results due to extra overhead.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.includes	3359197.5 Ops/sec
array.includes	13848172.0 Ops/sec
ramda includes	7773584.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array includes ramda lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.includes vs array.includes vs ramda includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.includes

array.includes

ramda includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):