Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
has vs includess
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
includes vs has
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array.from(10000).fill().map((_, index) => index); var set = new Set(arr);
Tests:
includes
arr.includes(5);
has
set.has(5);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
includes
has
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):
Let's break down what's happening in this benchmark. **What is being tested?** The website `MeasureThat.net` is comparing two approaches: `includes` and `has`. Both methods are used to check if an element exists within a collection (in this case, an array or a set). The difference between the two lies in their implementation: * `includes`: checks if a value is present in a sequence (array, string) by iterating through it until finding a match. It returns `true` if found and `false` otherwise. * `has`: checks if a value exists within a collection (set) by testing for its membership. In JavaScript, sets are implemented as hash tables, making this operation very efficient. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **includes**: Pros: * Easy to understand and implement * Works on strings and arrays Cons: * Less efficient than `has` for large collections (since it has to iterate through the entire sequence) 2. **has**: Pros: * Very efficient, especially for sets (hash table operations have an average time complexity of O(1)) * Only works on sets (hash tables) **Library and syntax:** The test uses the `Set` constructor from JavaScript's built-in library, which is used to create a set data structure. Sets are implemented as hash tables, making membership tests very efficient. There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. **Other alternatives:** If you wanted to implement `includes` without using a set, you could use a different approach, such as: 1. Linear search: iterate through the collection until finding a match. 2. Binary search (if the collection is sorted): divide the search space in half until finding a match. However, these approaches are less efficient than using a set or the `has` method. **Benchmarking context:** The benchmark measures the performance of both methods on large arrays and sets, with different browser and device configurations. By comparing these two approaches, the website can provide insights into the efficiency of `includes` versus `has`, which can be useful for optimizing JavaScript code.
Related benchmarks:
has vs includes
JS includes vs set
array.includes vs array.indexOf
Array.includes vs Set.has vas Map.has 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?