Benchmark: Contains, indexOf

Script Preparation code:

var list = [...Array(1000).keys()].map((index) => {return {id: index, name: `PRODUCT_${index}`}});
var newItems = [{id: 50, name: 'CUST_50'}, {id: 412, name: 'CUST_412'}];
var newItemIds = newItems.map((item) => item.id);

Tests:

includes
list.filter((item) => { return !newItemIds.includes(item.id); });
indexOf
list.filter((item) => { return newItemIds.indexOf(item.id) === -1; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
indexOf

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 break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two microbenchmarks that compare the performance of two approaches: using the `includes` method and using the `indexOf` method to filter an array in JavaScript. The benchmarks are designed to measure the execution speed of these methods on a list of 1000 objects, where some items are already present in the list.

**Options compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

1. **Includes method**: This method checks if a specific item is present in an array using the `includes` function.
2. **IndexOf method**: This method returns the index of a specific item in an array, and then uses this index to determine if the item is present (if it's -1, the item is not present).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Includes method**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than `indexOf` for large arrays because it requires iterating over the array until a match is found.
* **IndexOf method**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `includes` for large arrays because it returns an index immediately, reducing iteration time. Also, it's often more efficient for exact matches.
	+ Cons: Requires a separate step to determine if the returned index is -1, which can add overhead.

Other considerations:

* The benchmarks are run on a Linux desktop with Chrome 76 browser, so the results might not be representative of other platforms or browsers.
* The list size (1000) and item count (2 new items) are relatively small, which might affect the performance difference between `includes` and `indexOf`.
* Both methods have a time complexity of O(n), where n is the array length. However, in practice, modern JavaScript engines often optimize these functions to be faster.

**Library and syntax**

Neither test case uses any external libraries or special JS features beyond standard JavaScript functionality.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code creates an array `list` with 1000 objects, each representing a product, and adds two new items (`newItems`) that are not present in the list. The `newItemIds` variable is created by mapping the `id` property of `newItems` to an array.

**Benchmark execution**

The benchmark is executed multiple times (not specified), and the results are collected for each test case. The latest available result shows:

* For the `includes` method, Chrome 76 on Linux desktop executes approximately 4827 executions per second.
* For the `indexOf` method, Chrome 76 on Linux desktop executes approximately 4397 executions per second.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these methods might include:

* Using a Set data structure to keep track of present items, which can be faster for large arrays.
* Implementing a custom filtering function using bitwise operations or other optimization techniques.
* Using a different programming language or framework that provides more efficient array searching functionality.

Related benchmarks:

Contains, indexOf (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: includes vs indexOf

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

includes

indexOf

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):