Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test smol array
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
indexOf vs includes
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var myArray = ["box984", "box985", "box986", "box987", "box988", "box989"]
Tests:
indexOf
myArray.indexOf("box989") !== -1
includes
myArray.includes("box989")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
indexOf
includes
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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark. **What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we have two individual test cases: `indexOf` and `includes`. These tests are designed to measure the performance of these two methods when searching for an element in an array. **Options being compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **`indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value within an array. If the value is not found, it returns -1. 2. **`includes()`**: This method checks if an array includes a specific value. It returns `true` if the value is present and `false` otherwise. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief overview of each method: * **`indexOf()`**: * Pros: Efficient for arrays with a small number of elements, as it can take advantage of the array's internal indexing mechanism. * Cons: Can be slow if used on large arrays due to the need to iterate through the entire array. It also has a performance overhead when searching from the end of the array. * **`includes()`**: * Pros: Faster and more efficient than `indexOf()` for large arrays, as it uses a single pass through the array and doesn't require iterating backwards. * Cons: Has a higher performance overhead when searching at the beginning of the array. In terms of general performance characteristics: * **`includes()`** is generally faster for larger arrays because it's implemented in native code. However, it may be slower if you're only working with small arrays or need to find the first occurrence. * **`indexOf()`** can be more efficient when searching from the beginning of the array. **Library usage** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly used beyond JavaScript's built-in `Array` methods. However, the MeasureThat.net platform might use underlying libraries for its execution environment or other features not directly related to the benchmarked code. **Special JS features/syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It focuses solely on the performance of the two array methods under consideration (`indexOf()` and `includes()`). **Other alternatives** If you were considering alternative approaches for measuring performance: * **Native code**: As mentioned earlier, `includes()` is implemented in native code, which can lead to faster execution times compared to JavaScript-based implementations. * **Iterative vs. recursive methods**: Both iterative (e.g., using a loop) and recursive methods are used when implementing array search algorithms. Recursive approaches can be more intuitive but generally slower due to the function call overhead. The choice of implementation (native code, iterative vs. recursive methods) depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.
Related benchmarks:
spread vs concat vs unshift for arrays
50000 number array(natvie forEach vs lodash forEach)
Javascript unshift
spread v splice
spread vs concat vs unshift (v96)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?