Benchmark: Array some versus Array includes

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
arr.push('A');
arr.push('B');
arr.push('C');
arr.push('D');

Tests:

Array.includes
var tempResult = !arr.includes(v => v === 'D');
Array.some
var tempResult = !arr.some(v => v === 'D');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Array.some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript functions: `Array.includes()` and `Array.some()`. Both functions are used to check if an element exists in an array.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a sample array `arr` with four elements: 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D'. This array will be used as the input for both benchmarking functions.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no html preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only tests the JavaScript execution time on the client-side.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `Array.includes()`: Tests the `includes()` method of an array. The benchmarking function uses a callback function `v => v === 'D'` to check if any element in the array is equal to `'D'`.
2. `Array.some()`: Tests the `some()` method of an array. Similar to the previous test case, this function uses a callback function `v => v === 'D'` to check if any element in the array is equal to `'D'`.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show the execution time per second for both `Array.includes()` and `Array.some()` on a Chrome 80 browser on a Windows Desktop.

**Pros, Cons, and Considerations**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **Array.includes()**
	* Pros: Efficient and straightforward implementation.
	* Cons: May be slower than `Array.some()` for smaller arrays or when searching for an element in the middle of the array.
	* Other considerations: The callback function in this benchmarking case is optimized for performance, as it only checks if one specific value exists in the array. This can make a difference in real-world scenarios where you need to search for multiple values or check if any element satisfies a condition.
2. **Array.some()**
	* Pros: Can be faster than `includes()` when searching for an element in a larger array, as it stops iterating as soon as it finds a match.
	* Cons: May be slower than `includes()` for very small arrays, as the overhead of checking each element can outweigh the benefits of stopping early.
	* Other considerations: Like `includes()`, the callback function in this benchmarking case is optimized for performance. However, when using `some()` with a callback function that checks multiple conditions (e.g., `v => v > 5 && v < 10`), it may not be as efficient as using `includes()`.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. The only external dependency is the JavaScript engine (in this case, Chrome).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmarking functions use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard for JavaScript arrays and callback functions.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare the performance of other array methods, consider using these alternatives:

1. `Array.filter()`: Tests the `filter()` method, which creates a new array with only the elements that pass a test.
2. `Array.indexOf()`: Tests the `indexOf()` method, which returns the index of the first occurrence of an element or -1 if it's not found.
3. `Array.lastIndexOf()`: Tests the `lastIndexOf()` method, which returns the index of the last occurrence of an element or -1 if it's not found.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics compared to `includes()` and `some()`, depending on your specific use case and requirements.

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/80.0.3987.122 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	12308686.0 Ops/sec
Array.some	12095948.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array some versus Array includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Array.some

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Array.some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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