Benchmark: Array.includes() vs. manual compare

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['cat', 'dog', 'duck'];
var search1 = 'dog';
var search2 = 'cow';

Tests:

includes()
var found = arr.includes(search1); var notFound = arr.includes(search2);
manual comparison
var found = search1 === 'cat' || search1 === 'dog' || search1 === 'duck'; var notFound = search2 === 'cat' || search2 === 'dog' || search2 === 'duck';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes()
manual comparison

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if an element exists in an array: using the `Array.includes()` method and manual comparison using the `===` operator.

**Script Preparation Code**

```javascript
var arr = ['cat', 'dog', 'duck'];
var search1 = 'dog';
var search2 = 'cow';
```

The script creates an array `arr` with three elements: "cat", "dog", and "duck". Two variables, `search1` and `search2`, are assigned values: `'dog'` and `'cow'`, respectively.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark focuses on JavaScript performance only.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

### Test Case 1: includes()

```javascript
var found = arr.includes(search1);
var notFound = arr.includes(search2);
```

This test case uses the `Array.includes()` method to check if `search1` and `search2` exist in the array. The `includes()` method returns a boolean value indicating whether the element is found or not.

### Test Case 2: manual comparison

```javascript
var found = search1 === 'cat' || search1 === 'dog' || search1 === 'duck';
var notFound = search2 === 'cat' || search2 === 'dog' || search2 === 'duck';
```

This test case uses a combination of logical operators (`||`) and the `===` operator to manually check if `search1` and `search2` exist in the array. The expressions are evaluated from left to right, and the first true condition is considered as the result.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

*   **includes() method:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Concise and readable code.
        *   Fewer lines of code compared to manual comparison.
        *   Less prone to errors due to its simplicity.
    *   Cons:
        *   Performance might be slower due to the overhead of function calls.
*   **Manual Comparison:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Can be optimized for performance by avoiding unnecessary comparisons.
        *   May provide better control over the evaluation order.
    *   Cons:
        *   Longer code and more prone to errors due to complex logic.

**Library**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The `Array.includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript function, while manual comparison uses only basic syntax.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as ES6 classes, async/await, or Promises.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to check if an element exists in an array could include:

*   Using `Array.indexOf()` instead of `includes()`.
*   Using a custom implementation with binary search for large arrays.
*   Using a different data structure, such as a Set, for faster lookups.
*   Utilizing GPU acceleration or parallel processing for performance-critical applications.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes() vs. manual compare (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes() vs manual comparison

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes()

manual comparison

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):