Benchmark: set.has vs. array.find

Script Preparation code:

var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.find(n => n === 9)
lookup
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:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

lookup

169.1M/s

includes

98.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lookup	169,071,232 Ops/sec
includes	98,211,240 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to find an element in an array:

1. `array.find`: This method finds the first element in the array that satisfies a given condition.
2. `set.has`: This property checks if a value exists in a Set object.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script prepares two arrays: `a` and `b`. Array `a` contains numbers from 1 to 10, and array `b` is created by converting the elements of `a` into a new Set object `b`.

**Options Compared**

We have two test cases:

1. **includes**: This benchmark tests the `array.find` method with a callback function that checks if an element is equal to 9.
2. **lookup**: This benchmark tests the `set.has` property by checking if the value 9 exists in set `b`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **array.find**:
	* Pros: Efficient for finding a single element, as it uses a single loop iteration.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for large arrays or when searching for multiple elements, as it returns the first match.
2. **set.has**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient for checking membership in a set, as sets use a hash table internally to store elements.
	* Cons: Slower than `array.find` because it involves traversing the Set object's internal data structure.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, we should also consider factors like:

* Array size and density (i.e., how spread out the elements are)
* The presence of duplicate elements in the array
* The need for finding multiple elements or performing other operations on the set

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `Set` object is used from the JavaScript Standard Library. A Set is a collection of unique values, and its `has` property provides an efficient way to check if a value exists in the set.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The tests only involve standard JavaScript methods and properties.

**Alternatives**

If you were to recreate this benchmark using alternative approaches, you might consider:

* Using other data structures like `Map` or a custom implementation of a set
* Employing different search algorithms, such as binary search for sorted arrays or more complex algorithms for unsorted arrays
* Comparing the performance of these methods with those from other programming languages (e.g., using the same method in C++ or Python)

Keep in mind that this benchmark focuses specifically on the `array.find` and `set.has` methods. If you wanted to compare the performance of different array-related methods, such as `indexOf`, `includes`, or `every`, you would need to create a separate set of benchmarks.

set.has vs. array.find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `includes vs lookup`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

lookup

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

set.has vs. array.find (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

lookup

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: `includes vs lookup`