Benchmark: IndexOf > vs Includes

Tests:

IndexOf >
var arr = ['', '', '1']; if(arr.indexOf('1') > 0){}
Includes
var arr = ['', '', '1']; if(arr.includes('1')){}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
IndexOf >
Includes

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 and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: `indexOf` (or `indexOf()>`) and `includes()` in JavaScript, which are used to check if a specific value exists within an array or string. The test aims to measure the performance difference between these two methods.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`indexOf>`**: This method checks for the index of the first occurrence of the specified value within the array or string. It returns `0` if the value is found and a negative number or `-1` if it's not found.
2. **`includes()`**: This method returns `true` if the specified value exists within the array or string, and `false` otherwise.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### `indexOf>()`

Pros:

* Generally faster than `includes()`, since it only checks for a single occurrence.
* Can be optimized by the browser to skip unnecessary iterations.

Cons:

* Returns the index of the first occurrence, which may not be what the developer intends if they want to check for any presence.
* May behave differently in certain browsers or versions due to how it's implemented (e.g., returning `-1` instead of `0` for non-existent values).

### `includes()`

Pros:

* Returns a boolean value (`true` or `false`) indicating the presence or absence, making it easier to read and write code.
* Is more readable and maintainable, as it clearly conveys the intent.

Cons:

* Generally slower than `indexOf>()`, since it checks for all occurrences by default.
* May be less optimized by browsers compared to `indexOf>()`.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark cases use any external libraries. However, some JavaScript features, like arrow functions or template literals, are used in the test cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The provided benchmark cases do not explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that `includes()` is a relatively modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10).

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are some examples:

* Using `Array.prototype.some()` or `String.prototype.includes()`, which provide similar functionality but with slightly different behavior.
* Implementing a custom search algorithm using bitwise operations or iteration.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly comparable to the provided benchmark cases, as they might require significant changes to your codebase.

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf > vs Includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: IndexOf > vs Includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

IndexOf >

Includes

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):