Benchmark: Includes vs. IndexOf vs. Filter

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Includes()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.includes(v => v === 0);
IndexOf()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
Filter()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes()
IndexOf()
Filter()

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.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case, specifically comparing three approaches: `includes()`, `indexOf()`, and `filter()` methods.

**What is tested?**

These test cases measure the performance of these three methods when searching for an element within an array. Specifically:

* `includes()`: This method checks if an element with a certain value exists in the array.
* `indexOf()`: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified element in the array, or -1 if it's not found.
* `filter()`: This method creates a new array containing only the elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.

**Options compared**

The three options are compared to determine which one is most efficient in terms of execution speed.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`includes()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and easy to read.
	* Cons: This method uses a linear search algorithm, which can be slow for large arrays.
2. **`indexOf()`**:
	* Pros: Can return the index of the first occurrence, making it useful in certain scenarios.
	* Cons: This method also uses a linear search algorithm and is slower than `includes()` for most cases.
3. **`filter()`**:
	* Pros: Creates a new array with filtered elements, which can be beneficial if you need to process the results further.
	* Cons: Requires more memory allocation and can be slower than `includes()` due to the additional overhead of creating a new array.

**Library usage**

None of these test cases use any external libraries. The methods are built-in JavaScript functions, making it easy to run this benchmark on any platform that supports JavaScript.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There is no special feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard JavaScript functions and data structures.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using `forEach()` instead of `some()`, `indexOf()`, or `filter()`: This can provide an interesting comparison, as `forEach()` is generally faster but less efficient for certain use cases.
* Implementing a custom search algorithm using bitwise operations (e.g., using masks to check for element presence): This could potentially be faster than the built-in methods but would likely require more code and be less readable.
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides optimized implementations of these methods: This can provide a good baseline comparison, as the optimized libraries are often implemented in C++ or other low-level languages.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its pros and cons, and the best choice depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Includes vs. IndexOf vs. Filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes() vs IndexOf() vs Filter()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes()

IndexOf()

Filter()

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):