Benchmark: .includes vs mass compare vs lookup vs integrated array

Script Preparation code:

function activeElementIsImportant1() {
        let activeElement = "someString";
        if (activeElement == 'someString11'
            || activeElement == '123'
            || activeElement == 'qeqw'
            || activeElement == 'qwewqdadas'
            || activeElement == 'someString1'
            || activeElement == 'someString12'
            || activeElement == 'asdqwwqd'
            || activeElement == 'asdadqw'
            || activeElement == 'xzczxaq'
            || activeElement == 'zxczx'
            || activeElement == '12321'
            || activeElement == 'qwewq'
            || activeElement == 'asdasdasdsa'
            || activeElement == 'czxcz'
            || activeElement == 'vbvbvb'
            || activeElement == 'wwww'
            || activeElement == '121'
            || activeElement == '12321312'
            || activeElement == 'zxzxzxzxzxzx'
            || activeElement == '3333') {
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        };
    };

const compareArray = ['someString11',
    '123',
    'qeqw',
    'qwewqdadas',
    'someString1',
    'someString12',
    'asdqwwqd',
    'asdadqw',
    'xzczxaq',
    'zxczx',
    '12321',
    'qwewq',
    'asdasdasdsa',
    'czxcz',
    'vbvbvb',
    'wwww',
    '121',
    '12321312',
    'zxzxzxzxzxzx',
    '3333'];

function activeElementIsImportant2() {
        if (compareArray.includes("someString")) {
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        };
    };

const lookup = new Map([
        ['someString11'],
        ['123'],
        ['qeqw'],
        ['qwewqdadas'],
        ['someString1'],
        ['someString12'],
        ['asdqwwqd'],
        ['asdadqw'],
        ['xzczxaq'],
        ['zxczx'],
        ['12321'],
        ['qwewq'],
        ['asdasdasdsa'],
        ['czxcz'],
        ['vbvbvb'],
        ['wwww'],
        ['121'],
        ['12321312'],
        ['zxzxzxzxzxzx'],
        ['3333']
    ]);
function activeElementIsImportant3() {
        if (lookup.has("someString")) {
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        };
    };

//ignore the indentation
function activeElementIsImportant4() {
        if (['someString11',
    '123',
    'qeqw',
    'qwewqdadas',
    'someString1',
    'someString12',
    'asdqwwqd',
    'asdadqw',
    'xzczxaq',
    'zxczx',
    '12321',
    'qwewq',
    'asdasdasdsa',
    'czxcz',
    'vbvbvb',
    'wwww',
    '121',
    '12321312',
    'zxzxzxzxzxzx',
    '3333'].includes("someString")) {
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        };
    };

Tests:

mass compare
let k = activeElementIsImportant1();
array test
let k = activeElementIsImportant2();
lookup table
let k = activeElementIsImportant3();
integrated array
let k = activeElementIsImportant4();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
mass compare
array test
lookup table
integrated array

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different approaches to check if a string exists in an array or lookup table:

1. `mass compare` (also known as a linear search)
2. `array test`
3. `lookup table`
4. `integrated array`

**Options Compared**

* **Mass Compare**: Uses a simple loop to iterate through the array and checks if the target string is present.
* **Array Test**: Directly uses the `includes()` method on the array, which performs a linear search.
* **Lookup Table**: Creates a Map object with the strings as keys and then uses the `has()` method to check if the target string exists in the map.
* **Integrated Array**: Treats the array as an integrated data structure where every element has a reference to every other element. This approach is not a common technique, but it's mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Mass Compare**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement and understand.
	* Cons: Has a high time complexity (O(n)) and may be slow for large arrays.
2. **Array Test**: Also has a linear search time complexity (O(n)), but it's implemented using the `includes()` method, which is more efficient than a simple loop.
3. **Lookup Table**:
	* Pros: Has a fast lookups (O(1)) on average, making it suitable for large arrays or datasets.
	* Cons: Requires extra memory to store the lookup table and key-value pairs.
4. **Integrated Array**: This approach is not recommended due to its complexity and potential performance issues.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* `array test` (using `includes()`) performs best with 132,966,554 executions per second on a desktop Chrome 102 browser.
* `lookup table` comes in second with 132,945,511 executions per second.
* `mass compare` takes the third spot with 132,264,950 executions per second.
* `integrated array` performs poorly with 130,502,850 executions per second.

In summary, the results suggest that using an `array test` approach with the `includes()` method provides the best performance, followed closely by a `lookup table` implementation. The `mass compare` approach is slower but still suitable for small to medium-sized arrays. The `integrated array` approach is not recommended due to its complexity and potential performance issues.

Related benchmarks:

.includes vs mass compare vs lookup vs integrated array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: mass compare vs array test vs lookup table vs integrated array

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

mass compare

array test

lookup table

integrated array

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):