Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes - large dataset - middle result

Script Preparation code:

var a = [];
for (i = 1; i < 100000; i++) {
  a.push(i);
}
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(54321)
lookup
return b.has(54321)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to checking if an element exists in a dataset:

1. `includes` (using the Array.prototype.includes() method)
2. `lookup` (using the Set.prototype.has() method)

In this specific case, the datasets are large arrays and Sets created from these arrays.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options for checking if an element exists in a dataset:

A) Using the `includes()` method on an array
B) Using the `has()` method on a Set

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **includes() method (Array.prototype.includes())**
	+ Pros:
		- More intuitive to use, as it's similar to checking if a value exists in an array using the `in` operator.
		- Often faster than `has()` for small to medium-sized datasets, since it can use internal arrays and optimized searching algorithms.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower for very large datasets (like this one), because it has to iterate over the entire array to find the element.
		- May have performance issues if the dataset is not properly ordered or indexed.
* **has() method (Set.prototype.has())**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster than `includes()` for large datasets, since it can use internal data structures and optimized searching algorithms specifically designed for Sets.
		- More efficient in terms of memory usage, as it doesn't require storing the entire dataset like an array does.
	+ Cons:
		- Less intuitive to use, especially for developers unfamiliar with Sets.

**Other considerations:**

* Both approaches assume that the element being searched for is present in the dataset. If the element might not exist, additional checks would be needed.
* The benchmark doesn't account for edge cases like duplicate elements or NaN (Not a Number) values.

**Library used:**

In this case, no specific libraries are mentioned as dependencies, but `Set` and Array.prototype are built-in JavaScript constructs.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

No special features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two existing methods (includes() and has()).

Now that I've taken a deep breath, I hope my explanation helps clarify what's being tested in this benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes - large dataset - middle result (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

lookup

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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