Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes Perf Random

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array.from({length: 100000}, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 40));
var b = new Set(a);

Tests:

Includes
return a.includes(98765)
lookup
return b.has(98765)

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `array.includes()` and using a `Set` data structure to look up an element.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Includes**: This test case creates an array `a` with 100,000 random elements, and then checks if a specific value (98765) is present in the array using `array.includes()`.
2. **lookup**: This test case creates a set `b` from the same array `a`, and then checks if the same value (98765) is present in the set using `Set#has()`.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using an array (`a`) to store elements, and checking for presence using `array.includes()`.
* Using a `Set` data structure to store elements, and checking for presence using `Set#has()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Array-based approach:**

Pros:

* Wide compatibility with older browsers and systems.
* Easy to implement and understand.
* Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., sorting, searching).

Cons:

* Has a time complexity of O(n) in the worst case, making it slower for large datasets.

**Set-based approach:**

Pros:

* Faster lookup times, with an average time complexity of O(1).
* More memory-efficient than arrays for large datasets.
* Often used in databases and other applications where fast lookups are critical.

Cons:

* May not be compatible with older browsers or systems that don't support `Set` data structures.
* Requires more understanding and implementation effort to use correctly.

**Library Used**

The library used in this benchmark is not explicitly mentioned. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine being tested supports modern JavaScript features and standard library functions like `Array.from()` and `Set#has()`, which are part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests are straightforward and rely on standard JavaScript functionality.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to performance-critical lookup operations, consider:

* Using a `Map` data structure instead of an array or set, which provides faster lookups with an average time complexity of O(1).
* Implementing your own optimized lookup algorithm, such as using a hash table or a Bloom filter.
* Using multi-threading or parallel processing techniques to take advantage of multiple CPU cores.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes Perf Random (version: 0)

set.has vs. array.includes Perf Random

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):