Benchmark: Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty vs Object in vs Object[] vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs Set.has

Script Preparation code:

  var object = {},
      array = [],
      set = new Set(),
      i, test = 1000;
  
  for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
   object['something' + i] = true;
   array.push('something' + i);
   set.add('something' + i);
  }

Tests:

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty
Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(object, 'something' + test)
Object in
('something' + test) in object
Array.indexOf
array.indexOf('something' + test) !== -1
direct
object['something' + test] === true
Array includes
array.includes('something' + test)
Set has
set.has('something' + test)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Set has

153.5M/s

Object in

65.1M/s

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty

42.9M/s

direct

31.2M/s

Array includes

1.1M/s

Array.indexOf

1.1M/s

Fastest: Set has (139.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Set has: 153,545,616 ops/sec
• Object in: 65,081,556 ops/sec
• Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty: 42,852,144 ops/sec
• direct: 31,183,858 ops/sec
• Array includes: 1,126,234 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 1,100,812 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty
Object in
Array.indexOf
direct
Array includes
Set has

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Set has

292.0M/s

Object in

97.5M/s

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty

76.8M/s

direct

55.5M/s

Array includes

1.6M/s

Array.indexOf

1.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Set has	291,956,992 Ops/sec
Object in	97,524,400 Ops/sec
Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty	76,781,608 Ops/sec
direct	55,451,540 Ops/sec
Array includes	1,553,713 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	1,536,186 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of six different methods to check if a property exists in an object:

1. `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(object, 'something' + test)`
2. `'something' + test` in `object`
3. `array.indexOf('something' + test) !== -1`
4. `object['something' + test] === true`
5. `array.includes('something' + test)`
6. `set.has('something' + test)`

**Methods Compared**

Here's a brief description of each method, their pros and cons, and other considerations:

1. **`Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(object, 'something' + test)`**
	* Purpose: Check if a property exists in an object using the `hasOwnProperty` method.
	* Pros: Fast, reliable, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May have performance issues with large objects due to the overhead of the `hasOwnProperty` call.
2. **`('something' + test) in object`**
	* Purpose: Use the `in` operator to check if a property exists in an object.
	* Pros: Fast, simple, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for very large objects due to the overhead of the `in` operator call.
3. **`array.indexOf('something' + test) !== -1`**
	* Purpose: Use the `indexOf` method to find an element in an array, then check if the result is not equal to -1 (indicating the absence of the element).
	* Pros: Fast and simple for arrays.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for large objects due to the overhead of the `indexOf` call.
4. **`object['something' + test] === true`**
	* Purpose: Use property access to check if a property exists in an object.
	* Pros: Fast and simple, but may have performance issues with very large objects.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for large objects due to the overhead of property access.
5. **`array.includes('something' + test)`**
	* Purpose: Use the `includes` method to check if an element exists in an array.
	* Pros: Fast and simple, but only available in modern browsers (ES11+).
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for very large arrays due to the overhead of the `includes` call.
6. **`set.has('something' + test)`**
	* Purpose: Use a Set data structure to check if an element exists.
	* Pros: Fast and simple, especially for modern browsers (ES11+).
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods for very large Sets due to the overhead of hash operations.

**Special Notes**

* The `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call` method is not strictly necessary in modern JavaScript versions, as `hasOwnProperty` is a built-in method on objects. However, it's still included here to test compatibility with older browsers.
* The `array.includes` and `set.has` methods are only available in modern browsers (ES11+). Their inclusion here tests compatibility with newer browsers.

**Alternatives**

If you need to support older browsers or specific use cases not covered by this benchmark, consider using:

* `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call`
* `('something' + test) in object`
* `array.indexOf` (with a custom implementation for the `includes` check)
* Custom property access methods
* Other specialized data structures, such as `Map` or `WeakSet`, which may be more suitable for specific use cases.

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty vs Object in vs Object[] vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs Set.has (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty vs Object in vs Array.indexOf vs direct vs Array includes vs Set has`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty

Object in

Array.indexOf

direct

Array includes

Set has

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty vs Object in vs Object[] vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes vs Set.has (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty vs Object in vs Array.indexOf vs direct vs Array includes vs Set has

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty

Object in

Array.indexOf

direct

Array includes

Set has

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty vs Object in vs Array.indexOf vs direct vs Array includes vs Set has`