Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (run new Set in has test)

Script Preparation code:

var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(9)
lookup
var b = new Set(a) 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Name:** `set.has vs. array.includes (run new Set in has test)`

This benchmark compares two approaches for checking if an element exists in a JavaScript array: using the `includes()` method on the array itself, and creating a new `Set` instance from the array and then using the `has()` method on the set.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Array `includes()` method**: This approach checks if a specific value is present in the array by iterating through its elements.
2. **Creating a new Set instance**: Creates a new Set instance from the array and uses the `has()` method to check for the presence of an element.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Array `includes()` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward approach.
		+ Works well for small to medium-sized arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ Iterates through all elements in the array, which can be inefficient for large datasets.
		+ May have performance issues if the array is very large or sparse.
2. **Creating a new Set instance**:
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient than iterating through the entire array, as sets use a hash table to store unique values.
		+ Can take advantage of CPU caching and other optimizations for better performance.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating an additional object (the set), which may incur overhead in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection.
		+ May not be suitable for very large datasets, as the set's internal representation can become too complex to manage.

**Other Considerations:**

* For small arrays or arrays with a small number of unique elements, the difference between these two approaches might be negligible. However, for larger datasets, creating a new Set instance is likely to outperform the array `includes()` method.
* If you need to frequently add or remove elements from the array, using an array with a `Set` as its underlying data structure (e.g., using `Array.from()` and `Set`) might provide better performance and scalability.

**Library:**

None of the benchmark tests explicitly use any external libraries. However, creating a new Set instance involves the internal `Set` class in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

This benchmark uses standard JavaScript features and syntax without any special or experimental features.

Now, let's look at the individual test cases:

1. **`includes`**:
	* This test case measures the performance of checking if a specific element is present in an array using the `includes()` method.
2. **`lookup`**:
	* This test case measures the performance of creating a new Set instance from an array and then using the `has()` method to check for the presence of an element.

The latest benchmark result shows that Chrome 96 outperforms itself when running the `lookup` test, while still performing slower than itself when running the `includes` test. This may indicate that there are issues with the execution or measurement of this specific benchmark case.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes (run new Set in has test) (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):