Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes string values

Script Preparation code:

var a = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", "g", "h", "i", "j"];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes("i")
lookup
return b.has("i")

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: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:124.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/124.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

lookup

1498.9M/s

includes

36.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lookup	1,498,898,688 Ops/sec
includes	36,048,392 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using `Array.includes()` for searching a string value in an array, versus using a `Set` data structure (specifically, the `has()` method) to achieve the same result.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Array.includes()`**: This method searches for the specified value (`"i"` in this case) in the array and returns a boolean indicating whether it's present.
2. **`Set.has()`**: In this approach, a `Set` is created from an array of strings, and then the `has()` method is used to check if a specific string value (`"i"`) is present in the set.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Array.includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than using a data structure like `Set`, especially for large arrays or sets.
* **`Set.has()`**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than `Array.includes()`, as it uses a hash table data structure for lookups.
	+ Cons: May require additional setup (creating the `Set`), and not all browsers support this method.

**Library/Utility Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used beyond what's built into JavaScript. However, using a `Set` does rely on the browser's implementation of set data structures, which may vary between engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome vs. SpiderMonkey in Firefox).

**JavaScript Features/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any advanced JavaScript features or syntax that would affect its understanding.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code creates two variables:

* `a`: an array of strings containing values `"a"` to `"j"`.
* `b`: a new `Set` created from the elements of `a`.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a single benchmark definition, which is executed to measure performance. The two test cases are:

1. **`includes`**: Searches for the string value `"i"` in array `a` using `Array.includes()`.
2. **`lookup`**: Searches for the string value `"i"` in set `b` using its `has()` method.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest results show that the execution time for each test case is different:

* **`lookup` (using `Set.has()`)**: 36048392 executions per second.
* **`includes` (using `Array.includes()`)**: 1498898688 executions per second.

This suggests that using a data structure like `Set` can provide significant performance improvements for certain types of lookups.

set.has vs. array.includes string values (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.includes string values (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`