Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test 1..
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
test 1. vs test2
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = new Array(100000).fill("fill"); arr.push("lab");
Tests:
test 1.
arr.includes("lab")
test2
arr.indexOf("lab")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
test 1.
test2
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):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The provided `benchmark definition` json represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches for finding an element within an array: using the `includes()` method or the `indexOf()` method. The script preparation code initializes an array with 100,000 elements and pushes a single string "lab" to it. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **`arr.includes('lab')`**: This approach uses the `includes()` method to search for the presence of the string "lab" within the array. 2. **`arr.indexOf('lab')`**: This approach uses the `indexOf()` method to find the index of the first occurrence of the string "lab" within the array. **Pros and Cons** * **`includes()` Method**: * Pros: Generally faster for large arrays since it uses a linear search algorithm that only traverses the elements until it finds a match. It's also more concise and easier to read. * Cons: Can be slower than `indexOf()` for small arrays because of the overhead of string concatenation. * **`indexOf()` Method**: * Pros: Generally faster for small arrays since it uses a binary search algorithm that can quickly find an element. It's also more precise, as it returns the exact index of the first occurrence of the element. * Cons: Can be slower than `includes()` for large arrays because of the overhead of the indexing calculation. **Library Used** In this benchmark, none of the libraries are explicitly mentioned in the provided code or json data. However, MeasureThat.net might be using a library under the hood to manage and execute the microbenchmarks. The specifics of any internal libraries used by MeasureThat.net are not publicly disclosed. **Special JS Feature/ Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both `includes()` and `indexOf()` are standard methods provided by the ECMAScript specification for searching within arrays. **Alternatives** If you're looking to create your own microbenchmarks or alternatives to these tests, here are some options: * **Benchmarking Frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js, Micro-Benchmark, or Benchmark help simplify the process of creating and running benchmarks. * **Array Data Structures**: You can experiment with different array data structures, such as linked lists or tree-based structures, to see how they affect performance in search operations. * **Custom Optimization Techniques**: Investigate custom optimization techniques, like caching or memoization, to improve performance for specific use cases. In conclusion, this benchmark on MeasureThat.net is focused on testing the performance difference between `includes()` and `indexOf()` methods when searching within arrays. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can make informed decisions about which method to use in your own JavaScript applications or experiments.
Related benchmarks:
fill vs map
fill vs for loop
TypedArray fill vs loop
fill vs manual fill
Fill Array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?