Benchmark: Includes vs some2

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = Array.from(Array(100).keys(), x => ({ value: x, disabled: false }));
var arr2 = Array.from(Array(50).keys(), x => x * 2);

Tests:

includes
arr1.map(x => { if (arr2.includes(x.value)) x.disabled = true; return x; });
some
arr1.map(x => { if (arr2.some(y => x.value === y)) x.disabled = true; return x; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
some

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 designed to measure the performance difference between using `Array.prototype.includes()` and `Array.prototype.some()`. The test creates two arrays: `arr1` with 100 elements, where each element has a unique value, and `arr2` with 50 elements, where each element is multiplied by 2.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code initializes the two arrays:
```javascript
var arr1 = Array.from(Array(100).keys(), x => ({ value: x, disabled: false }));
var arr2 = Array.from(Array(50).keys(), x => x * 2);
```
This code uses `Array.prototype.map()` to create a new array with transformed elements. The `map()` method applies the provided function to each element in the original array and returns a new array with the results.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code, so we can skip this section.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **includes**

Benchmark Definition:
```javascript
arr1.map(x => {
  if (arr2.includes(x.value)) x.disabled = true;
  return x;
});
```
This test case measures the performance of using `Array.prototype.includes()` to check if an element is present in `arr2`.

2. **some**

Benchmark Definition:
```javascript
arr1.map(x => {
  if (arr2.some(y => x.value === y)) x.disabled = true;
  return x;
});
```
This test case measures the performance of using `Array.prototype.some()` to check if any element in `arr2` is equal to a value in `x`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **includes()**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and efficient way to check for presence.
		- Can be faster for large arrays.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower for small arrays due to the overhead of searching.
* **some()**

Pros:

*   Faster for small arrays due to lazy evaluation.

Cons:

*   Less explicit and less intuitive than `includes()`.
*   Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.

**Library: none**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS Features/Syntax: None**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

1.  Using `Array.prototype.find()` instead of `includes()`: This method returns the first element that satisfies the condition, and it can be faster for small arrays.
2.  Using `Array.prototype.findIndex()` instead of `some()`: This method returns the index of the first element that satisfies the condition, and it's often faster than `some()` for large arrays.
3.  Using a custom loop instead of `map()`: If you want to optimize for performance, using a simple loop can be faster than `map()`, especially for small arrays.

However, keep in mind that these alternatives might require more code and expertise to implement correctly.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its test cases!

Related benchmarks:

Includes vs some2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs some

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

some

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):