Benchmark: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs Set

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 = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus', 'ENTITY', 'THING', 'SOLID_THING', 'FLUIDO', 'PIEZA', 'PIEZA_ELECTRICA', 'PIEZA_MECANICA', 'CODIGO', 'SISTEMA', 'INDICADOR_DE_ERROR', 'PROP', 'FUNCIONALIDAD'];
var s = new Set(array);

Tests:

IndexOf
array.indexOf('sausage') !== 1
Includes
array.includes('sausage')
lodash
_.includes(array, 'sausage')
Set
s.has('sausage')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf
Includes
lodash
Set

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/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Set

34.6M/s

IndexOf

22.1M/s

Includes

21.2M/s

lodash

6.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Set	34,640,772 Ops/sec
IndexOf	22,072,408 Ops/sec
Includes	21,155,258 Ops/sec
lodash	6,265,600 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of four different approaches:

1. `indexOf` (native JavaScript method)
2. `includes` (native JavaScript method, introduced in ECMAScript 2019)
3. `_` (lodash library function `_.includes`)
4. `Set` (using a `Set` data structure)

**What's being tested**

For each test case, the benchmark measures how many executions per second are possible for each approach on the provided input array (`array`). The execution time is reported in seconds.

**Approaches and their pros/cons**

1. **Native JavaScript `indexOf` and `includes` methods**
	* Pros: Native code, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: May have varying performance depending on browser and engine implementation.
2. **Lodash library function `_`**
	* Pros: Well-tested and widely used library with optimized implementations.
	* Cons: External dependency, which may introduce overhead in some scenarios.
3. **Set data structure**
	* Pros: Efficient for membership testing, especially for large datasets.
	* Cons: May require additional memory allocation and garbage collection.

**Test Case Breakdown**

For each test case:

1. `IndexOf`
	* Native JavaScript method is used to find the index of a substring in the array using `array.indexOf('sausage')`.
	* The benchmark measures how many times this operation can be executed per second.
2. `Includes`
	* Similar to `IndexOf`, but uses the native JavaScript method with the new `includes` keyword: `array.includes('sausage')`.
3. `_ (Lodash) Includes`
	* Lodash's `_.includes` function is used to find if a value exists in an array, which in this case is just checking for membership.
4. `Set`
	* A `Set` data structure is created from the input array, and then its `has` method is used to check if a specific element exists within it.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax explicitly being tested in this benchmark. However, the use of the `_includes` method (from lodash) may be an interesting consideration for those familiar with functional programming and higher-order functions.

**Alternatives**

For further comparison, other approaches could be:

1. Using a custom implementation of `indexOf` and `includes`, which would allow developers to fine-tune performance optimizations.
2. Utilizing other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized implementations for membership testing (e.g., `Fast-String-Matches`).
3. Investigating the use of alternative data structures, such as `Map` instead of `Set`.
4. Using different programming paradigms, like functional programming with `filter()` and `some()` methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional dependencies or complexity, which could impact performance and scalability.

IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes vs Set (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Banana

Comparing performance of: `IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash vs Set`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

Set

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 lodash includes vs Set (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Banana

Comparing performance of: IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash vs Set

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

IndexOf

Includes

lodash

Set

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 vs Set`