Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
set.has vs. array.includes asdfasdf
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
includes vs lookup
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
includes
return a.includes([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])
lookup
const b = new Set([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]) return b.has(9)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark. **Overview** The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark created on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript methods: `array.includes` and `Set.has`. The test case uses an array with 10 elements, ranging from 1 to 10, which is used as the input for both methods. **Options being compared** The benchmark compares the performance of two options: 1. **`array.includes`**: This method searches for a specific element in an array and returns `true` if found, or `false` otherwise. 2. **`Set.has`**: This method checks if a specific value is present in a Set data structure. **Pros and Cons** Both methods have their own advantages and disadvantages: * `array.includes`: * Pros: Efficient for arrays with small to medium-sized datasets, as it only requires a single pass through the array. * Cons: Can be slow for large datasets due to its linear search approach. * `Set.has`: * Pros: Fast and efficient for large datasets, as Set operations are optimized for hash-based lookup. * Cons: Requires additional memory to store the Set data structure. **Library and purpose** The provided benchmark does not explicitly mention any libraries. However, it is worth noting that JavaScript Sets are a built-in data structure in modern browsers and Node.js environments. **Special JS features or syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only relies on standard ECMAScript syntax for the comparison. **Other alternatives** If you were to implement this benchmark using native code, some alternative approaches could be: * **Native array indexing**: Instead of using `array.includes` or `Set.has`, you could use direct array indexing (`arr[4]`) to access the element at index 9. This would be faster but might not work as expected if the array is modified. * **Native Set lookup**: If available, using a native set-based lookup function (e.g., `const arr = new Uint32Array(10); arr[4] === 9`) could provide similar performance to `Set.has`. However, these alternatives would require platform-specific compilation and might not work across all environments. In summary, the provided benchmark compares the performance of two standard JavaScript methods: `array.includes` and `Set.has`. The comparison aims to evaluate which method is faster for searching an array with a large number of elements.
Related benchmarks:
convert to set + set.has vs. array.includes
Includes (array) vs Has (Set)
array.includes vs. set.has on the fly
Array includes vs Set.has
set.has (w/ creation) vs. array.includes
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?