Benchmark: Array find vs includes

Tests:

includes: first
!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].includes('PDP Why Not Try')
includes: second
!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].includes('PDP Recently Viewed')
includes: missing
!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].includes('blarg')
find: first
!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].find(origin => origin === 'PDP Why Not Try')
find: second
['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].find(origin => origin === 'PDP Recently Viewed')
find: missing
['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].find(origin => origin === 'blarg')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes: first
includes: second
includes: missing
find: first
find: second
find: missing

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as an empty object with no script preparation code, html preparation code, or description. This suggests that the benchmark relies on external libraries or built-in JavaScript functionality to perform its tests.

**Test Cases**

There are six test cases, each comparing a different scenario:

1. `includes: first` - Verifies if "!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].includes('PDP Why Not Try')` returns true.
2. `includes: second` - Verifies if "!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].includes('PDP Recently Viewed')` returns true.
3. `includes: missing` - Verifies if "!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].includes('blarg')` returns false (i.e., not found).
4. `find: first` - Verifies if "!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].find(origin => origin === 'PDP Why Not Try')` returns the expected value.
5. `find: second` - Verifies if "!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].find(origin => origin === 'PDP Recently Viewed')` returns the expected value.
6. `find: missing` - Verifies if "!['PDP Why Not Try', 'PDP Recently Viewed'].find(origin => origin === 'blarg')` returns undefined (i.e., not found).

**Libraries and Built-in Functionality**

The benchmark relies on external libraries or built-in JavaScript functionality, specifically:

* `includes()`: A method that checks if a value exists in an array.
* `find()`: A method that searches for the first element in an array that satisfies a provided condition.

These methods are part of the ECMAScript standard and are implemented by most modern JavaScript engines, including Chrome.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. However, the use of arrow functions (`origin => origin === 'PDP Why Not Try'`) is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

For `includes()`:

* Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient.
	+ Returns false if the value is not found, which can be useful for optimization.
* Cons:
	+ Can return false positives if the array contains other values with the same value as the target.

For `find()`:

* Pros:
	+ Returns the actual element that matches the condition, rather than just a boolean value.
	+ Can be useful for more complex logic.
* Cons:
	+ Slower and less efficient than `includes()`.
	+ Returns undefined if no match is found, which can lead to errors.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark seems to focus on the performance differences between `includes()` and `find()`, with varying input scenarios. This suggests that the goal of the benchmark is to evaluate the performance characteristics of these methods under different conditions.

For a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript performance, it's essential to consider other factors beyond just the `includes()` and `find()` methods, such as:

* Array length and size
* Data type (e.g., numbers vs. strings)
* Memory allocation and garbage collection
* Browser-specific optimizations or quirks

**Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark with alternative approaches, some options could include:

1. Using `indexOf()` instead of `includes()`, which can be slower but still returns a non-negative index value.
2. Implementing custom binary search algorithms for arrays, which can be more efficient than the standard linear search.
3. Comparing different data structures, such as linked lists or trees, to see how they impact performance.

Keep in mind that the optimal approach will depend on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
includes: first	1183822464.0 Ops/sec
includes: second	1187827712.0 Ops/sec
includes: missing	1187441664.0 Ops/sec
find: first	171276304.0 Ops/sec
find: second	168369808.0 Ops/sec
find: missing	168706304.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array find vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes: first vs includes: second vs includes: missing vs find: first vs find: second vs find: missing

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

includes: first

includes: second

includes: missing

find: first

find: second

find: missing

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):