Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes vs _.includes for number array

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = [6, 44, 542, 235, -26, 82, 235, 277, 643, 90, 777, 334, 41, 5, 98, 183];

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf(777) !== 1
Includes
array.includes(777)
lodash
_.includes(array, 777)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

IndexOf

41.2M/s

Includes

37.6M/s

lodash

12.6M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ IndexOf	41,236,116 Ops/sec
Includes	37,556,968 Ops/sec
lodash	12,575,131 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark, describe the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What's being tested:**
The benchmark is testing the performance of three different methods to check if a specific number exists in an array:

1. `indexOf()`
2. `includes()`
3. `_.includes()` (using Lodash library)

**Options compared:**

* **`indexOf()`**: This method searches for the first occurrence of a specified value in the array and returns its index. If the value is not found, it returns `-1`.
* **`includes()`**: This method checks if an element exists in an array, returning `true` if found and `false` otherwise.
* **`.includes()` (Lodash)**: This is a higher-order function that checks if an element exists in an array, similar to the native `includes()` method.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **`indexOf()`**:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient for small arrays, returns index if found.
	+ Cons: Can be slow for large arrays, may return -1 if not found, can throw an error if array is modified while searching.
* **`includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Modern and widely supported, returns boolean result. May be faster than `indexOf()` for some use cases.
	+ Cons: May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support it, can be slower than `indexOf()` for very large arrays.
* **`.includes()` (Lodash)**:
	+ Pros: Higher-order function with more flexibility, can be used as a generic utility function. Returns boolean result.
	+ Cons: Requires Lodash library to be included, may have performance overhead compared to native methods.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a fixed-size array of numbers for testing, which might not be representative of real-world scenarios where arrays can be dynamically generated or modified.
* The `includes()` method is tested with both a single value and an empty array, but the latter is not used in any of the test cases.

**Library usage:**
Lodash's `.includes()` function is used as a benchmarking tool. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string handling, and more.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
None mentioned in the provided code or benchmarks.

**Alternatives:**
Other alternatives to these methods could include:

* `Array.prototype.find()` (ECMAScript 2015+): Returns the first element that satisfies the provided testing function.
* `Array.prototype.findIndex()` (ECMAScript 2015+): Similar to `indexOf()`, but returns `-1` if not found, instead of throwing an error.
* Using a custom implementation for array search, such as using a binary search algorithm.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the native methods and Lodash's `.includes()` function.

IndexOf vs Includes vs _.includes for number array (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

IndexOf vs Includes vs _.includes for number array (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

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: `IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash`