Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes asd fasdfasdf

Script Preparation code:

var a = [...Array(30).keys()]
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(9)
lookup
return b.has(9)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: `array.includes` and `set.has`. The test case uses an array of 30 elements, generated using the spread operator (`var a = [...Array(30).keys()];`) and converts it into a set (`var b = new Set(a);`).

**Options being compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **array.includes**: This method checks if a specific element exists in an array.
2. **set.has**: This method checks if an element exists in a set.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* `array.includes`:
	+ Pros: Efficient for small to medium-sized arrays, easy to understand and implement.
	+ Cons: May be slower for large arrays due to the need to traverse the entire array.
* `set.has`:
	+ Pros: Faster for large arrays or when checking membership multiple times, as sets provide constant-time membership checks.
	+ Cons: Requires creating a set from an array, which can be memory-intensive and slower than using `array.includes`.

**Library and purpose**

The `Set` object is a built-in JavaScript library that provides a fast and efficient way to store unique values. In this benchmark, the `Set` object is used to create a set from the array of elements.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two existing methods: `array.includes` and `set.has`.

**Other alternatives**

While not explicitly mentioned, other alternatives for checking membership in an array could include:

* Using a custom implementation, such as a binary search algorithm.
* Using a data structure like a hash table or trie.
* Utilizing native web APIs, such as the WebAssembly `in` operator.

However, these approaches are not being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code defines two variables:

* `a`: An array of 30 elements generated using the spread operator (`[...Array(30).keys()]`)
* `b`: A set created from the array `a` using the `Set` constructor (`new Set(a)`)

The HTML preparation code is empty, suggesting that no additional setup or configuration is required for the benchmark.

**Individual test cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. `"return a.includes(9)"` tests the performance of `array.includes`.
2. `"return b.has(9)"` tests the performance of `set.has`.

These test cases measure the execution time of each method by calling them with the same input value (`9`).

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes asd fasdfasdf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

lookup

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):