Benchmark: Array vs Set loopup in Javascript

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr.push(++i);
var set = new Set(arr);

Tests:

Array.prototype.includes
const isExits = arr.includes(1E5)
Set.prototype.has
const isExits = set.has(1E5)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.includes
Set.prototype.has

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Set.prototype.has

28.0M/s

Array.prototype.includes

26.3M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Set.prototype.has	27,952,500 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.includes	26,261,336 Ops/sec

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two separate script preparation codes, which are:

1. A JavaScript code that creates an array `arr` with 100,000 elements using a while loop and pushes each element to the array.
2. A new Set object `set` created from the `arr` array.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing two different data structures in JavaScript: Arrays (`Array.prototype.includes`) and Sets (`Set.prototype.has`). Both methods are used to check if an element (in this case, 100,000) exists within the collection.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Arrays (`Array.prototype.includes`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across all modern browsers.
		+ Familiar syntax for many developers.
		+ Can be optimized by some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
	* Cons:
		+ May have slower performance compared to Sets for large datasets.
		+ Requires a linear search, which can lead to O(n) time complexity.
2. **Sets (`Set.prototype.has`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster performance than Arrays for large datasets due to its hash-based lookup.
		+ More efficient for checking membership in a collection with unique elements.
	* Cons:
		+ Not as widely supported across older browsers or versions (not recommended).
		+ Requires the Set object to be created and populated, which adds overhead.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, it's worth noting that in real-world scenarios, you might use libraries like Lodash for utility functions or other libraries for data structures if you're working with complex datasets.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used here, as the benchmark focuses on comparing two standard methods (`includes` and `has`) between Arrays and Sets.

Array vs Set loopup in Javascript (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Array.prototype.includes vs Set.prototype.has`

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Array.prototype.includes

Set.prototype.has

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Array vs Set loopup in Javascript (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.includes vs Set.prototype.has

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Array.prototype.includes

Set.prototype.has

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: `Array.prototype.includes vs Set.prototype.has`