Benchmark: Set vs Array for unique list (convert set to array)4

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array(1000).fill(null).map((a, b) => b);

Tests:

Unique Array
var b = []; a.forEach(x => { if (!b.includes(x)) b.push(x); }); b.map(x => x);
Set
var c = new Set(); a.forEach(x => c.add(x)); var d = Array.from(c); d.map(x => x);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Unique Array
Set

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is to compare two approaches for creating a unique list from an existing array:

1. Using an empty array `[]` and iterating through it using `forEach`, adding elements to the array only if they are not already included (`if (!b.includes(x)) b.push(x);`).
2. Using a Set data structure, which is implemented as an array under the hood in JavaScript.

**Comparison Options**

The two options compared are:

1. **Array-based approach**: This method uses an empty array `[]` to store unique elements. It iterates through the original array using `forEach`, and adds each element to the array only if it's not already present.
2. **Set-based approach**: This method uses a Set data structure, which is implemented as an array under the hood in JavaScript (`Array.from(c)`). It iterates through the original array using `forEach` and adds elements to the Set.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Array-based approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ No need for a separate data structure.
	* Cons:
		+ Not optimized for performance, as it involves checking if an element is already present in the array using `includes()`.
2. **Set-based approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance, as adding elements to a Set only adds new unique elements (it uses hash tables under the hood).
		+ Can be more efficient for large datasets.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires knowledge of Sets and their implementation in JavaScript.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's worth noting that `Array.from()` and `Set` are built-in JavaScript APIs.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in these test cases. The focus is on the comparison of two approaches to create a unique list from an existing array.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, here are some options:

* Using a `Map` instead of a Set for storing unique elements.
* Using a custom implementation, such as a hash table or a trie, to store unique elements.
* Using a library like Lodash's `uniq()` function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional overhead or complexity, and may not offer significant performance benefits over the existing approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Set vs Array for unique list (convert set to array)4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Unique Array vs Set

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Unique Array

Set

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):