Benchmark: convert to set + set.has vs. array.includes

Script Preparation code:

var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(9)
convert to set
var b = new Set(a) return b.has(9)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

includes

65.9M/s

convert to set

5.9M/s

Fastest: includes (11.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ includes: 65,932,052 ops/sec
• convert to set: 5,868,160 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
convert to set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

includes

89.5M/s

convert to set

8.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ includes	89,467,664 Ops/sec
convert to set	7,958,976 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using `array.includes()` and converting an array to a set with `set.has()`. This test helps determine which method is faster for this specific use case.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Using `array.includes()`**: This approach involves searching for a specific value in the original array.
2. **Converting to set and using `set.has()`**: This approach involves converting the array to a set, which automatically removes duplicates, and then checking if the desired value is present in the set.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `array.includes()`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ Works well for small to medium-sized arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for large arrays due to the need to scan the entire array from scratch.
2. **Converting to set and using `set.has()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster for large arrays, as sets provide an efficient way to check for presence without scanning the entire array.
		+ Removes duplicates automatically, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional memory allocation for the set data structure.
		+ May not perform well if the array is very small or has a low number of unique values.

**Library Used**

The `Set` object is used as part of this benchmark. A `Set` in JavaScript is an unordered collection of unique values, which can be used to store and look up elements efficiently.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, note that sets are a built-in JavaScript data structure since ECMAScript 5 (released in 2009), so no special features or syntax are required to use them.

**Other Considerations**

This benchmark measures performance specifically for searching an array for a single value using `includes()` versus converting the array to a set and checking for presence with `has()`. Other factors that might influence the choice of approach include:

* Array size and density (number of unique values)
* Performance requirements
* Memory constraints
* Code readability and maintainability

**Alternatives**

If you need to perform similar searches or operations on arrays, consider exploring other approaches, such as:

1. Using `find()` or `findIndex()` methods with a callback function.
2. Implementing custom search algorithms, like binary search (more suitable for sorted arrays).
3. Utilizing other data structures, like trees or graphs, if they better suit your use case.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific requirements and constraints.

convert to set + set.has vs. array.includes (version: 0)

Check if it is faster to convert an array to a set and perform set.has(), compared to performing array.includes() on the base array.

Comparing performance of: `includes vs convert to set`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

convert to set

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

convert to set + set.has vs. array.includes (version: 0)

Check if it is faster to convert an array to a set and perform set.has(), compared to performing array.includes() on the base array.

Comparing performance of: includes vs convert to set

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

convert to set

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `includes vs convert to set`