Benchmark: intersect by create && set.has vs. array.includes

Script Preparation code:

var a = ['daf1313', '134132', 'dfasdf123', 'asfdgasfg4', 'sgfdafgs5', '134136', 'sgfdhjghj7', 'dfhjhfdj8', 'hjhfdjfha9', 'afgfagfga10'];

Tests:

includes
return a.includes('notinarray')
lookup
var b = new Set(a) return b.has('notinarray')

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:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

includes

55.5M/s

lookup

8.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ includes	55,476,852 Ops/sec
lookup	8,425,455 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for checking if an element exists in an array:

1. Using the `includes` method with a string literal ("notinarray").
2. Creating a new Set object from the array and using the `has` method on that set.

**Options Compared**

We have two options being compared:

**Option 1: `includes` method**

* Description: The `includes` method is a part of the JavaScript Array prototype, which checks if an element exists in the array. It returns a boolean value indicating whether the element is present.
* Pros:
	+ Simple and intuitive to use.
	+ Fast execution speed (typically O(n), where n is the length of the array).
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower for very large arrays, as it needs to scan through the entire array to check if the element exists.

**Option 2: Creating a Set from the array and using `has`**

* Description: This approach involves creating a new Set object from the array. A Set is an unordered collection of unique values. The `has` method on a Set object checks if a specific value (in this case, "notinarray") exists within the set.
* Pros:
	+ Can be faster for very large arrays, as it uses a data structure optimized for fast lookups (Set).
	+ More memory-efficient than using an array with the `includes` method.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, the library used is JavaScript's built-in Array and Set prototypes. The purpose of these libraries is to provide convenient methods for manipulating arrays and checking if elements exist within them.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-off between simplicity, performance, and memory usage. If you need to check if an element exists in a small array, the `includes` method might be sufficient. However, for larger arrays, creating a Set and using the `has` method can provide better performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for checking if an element exists in an array include:

* Using a custom function with a linear search algorithm.
* Using a data structure like a hash table or trie.
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provides more advanced array manipulation functions.

It's worth noting that the `includes` method has become a standard part of JavaScript in recent versions (ECMAScript 2019+), and is generally considered a good choice for most use cases. However, if performance or memory efficiency are critical, using a Set-based approach can provide benefits.

intersect by create && set.has vs. array.includes (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `includes vs lookup`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

lookup

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

intersect by create && set.has vs. array.includes (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

lookup

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 lookup`