Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
erwerrwerwer
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
in vs so
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
roles = ['R1','R2','R3']
Tests:
in
_.includes(roles, 'R3')
so
roles.some(function (r) { return r === 'R3' })
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
in
so
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the Benchmark Definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run benchmarks to measure the performance of different JavaScript features or functions. **Options being compared** In this benchmark, two different approaches are being compared: 1. `_.includes(roles, 'R3')`: This uses the `lodash.includes()` function to check if the string `'R3'` is present in the array `roles`. 2. `roles.some(function (r) { return r === 'R3' })`: This uses the `Array.prototype.some()` method with a callback function to check if any element in the `roles` array matches the condition `r === 'R3'`. **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **_.includes(roles, 'R3')**: This approach is more concise and easier to read, as it uses a built-in function to perform the operation. * Pros: Faster execution time, easier to write and understand. * Cons: May be less efficient than manual iteration, depending on the implementation details of `lodash.includes()`. 2. **roles.some(function (r) { return r === 'R3' })**: This approach is more explicit and allows for control over the iteration process. * Pros: More flexible, can be used with custom logic or error handling. * Cons: Longer code snippet, may be less readable. **Library used** The benchmark uses `lodash.js`, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and more. In this case, `_.includes()` is used to check if an element exists in an array. **Other considerations** * The benchmark assumes that the `roles` array contains at least one element. * Both approaches have the same time complexity (O(n)), where n is the length of the `roles` array. **Special JS feature or syntax** None mentioned, but it's worth noting that the use of `lodash.includes()` and `Array.prototype.some()` assumes a modern JavaScript environment with access to these functions. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to implement this benchmark without using `lodash.js`, you could use other approaches such as: * Manual iteration using `for` loops or `forEach()` * Using the `indexOf()` method or `includes()` (if supported by the browser) * Implementing a custom function for each approach However, these alternatives may be less efficient and more prone to errors than using established libraries like `lodash.js`. Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of two different approaches to checking if an element exists in an array. By considering the pros and cons of each method, developers can choose the best approach for their specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Map lodash and PureJS
Lodash keys vs native
lodash performance v2
lodash vs es6 test
get field from object v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?