Benchmark: chain of or equals vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var stringToMatch = 'hello';

Tests:

Array.includes
['banana', 'map', 'cloth', 'hello', 'person'].includes(stringToMatch)
Or chain
stringToMatch === 'banana' || stringToMatch === 'map' || stringToMatch === 'cloth' || stringToMatch === 'hello' || stringToMatch === 'person'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Or chain

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 13 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	95404864.0 Ops/sec
Or chain	175342992.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of what is tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of using `Array.includes` versus manually writing a chain of logical ORs to check if a string matches a specific value within an array. The test aims to measure the overhead of using `Array.includes` compared to traditional OR chaining.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being tested:

1. **Array.includes**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if a specified element is present in an array. It returns true if the element is found, and false otherwise.
2. **Or chain (manual approach)**: This involves manually writing a chain of logical ORs to check if a string matches a specific value within an array.

**Pros and Cons**

**Array.includes:**

Pros:

* Concise and expressive code
* Easy to read and maintain
* Optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine

Cons:

* May have overhead due to the additional function call and possible overhead of traversing the array internally
* Might not be as efficient as manual OR chaining in some cases, depending on the specific implementation

**Or chain (manual approach):**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient than using `Array.includes` because it avoids the overhead of an additional function call and potentially traversing an array
* Gives developers more control over the performance-critical part of the code

Cons:

* More verbose and harder to read than using `Array.includes`
* Requires explicit loop or recursive logic, which can be error-prone

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `stringToMatch` variable is initialized with a string value `'hello'`. No specific library is used in this test case.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement your own OR chain manually, you could use loops, recursive functions, or even bitwise operations (though that would be a stretch!). Some alternatives to using `Array.includes` include:

* Using the `indexOf()` method, which returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified element, and then checking if the index is -1
* Using the `forEach()` method to iterate over the array and check each element manually
* Using bitwise operations to compare individual bytes or characters of the string

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely be less efficient than using `Array.includes`, which is optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative way to measure the overhead of using `Array.includes` versus manual OR chaining. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about how to optimize their code for performance.

Related benchmarks:

chain of or equals vs includes (version: 0)

how much of a performance deficit you can expect from using Array.includes instead of manually writing a chain of logical ORs

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Or chain

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Or chain

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):