Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
includes vs set 1241 2341234 1233
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
arr.includes vs set.has
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(100000).fill(1).map((_, index) => index); arr[arr.length - 1] = -1; var set = new Set(); arr.forEach((item) => set.add(item));
Tests:
arr.includes
arr.includes(-1);
set.has
set.has(-1)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
arr.includes
set.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):
I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark and provide insights on the options being compared. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two common JavaScript operations: `arr.includes(-1)` and `set.has(-1)`. The test cases use an array `arr` with 100,000 elements filled with numbers from 0 to 99,999, and then sets up a new Set `set` containing these elements. The benchmark tests the performance of finding the presence of the element -1 in both the array using `includes()` and the set using `has()`, with a single iteration over the data. **Options Being Compared** There are two main options being compared: 1. **Array.includes()**: This method checks if a specified value (in this case, -1) exists in the array. 2. **Set.has()**: This method checks if an element exists in the set. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Array.includes():** Pros: * More intuitive and widely supported, as it's similar to the `indexOf()` method used for arrays. * Can be optimized more aggressively by modern browsers, since it only needs to scan the array until the first occurrence of -1. Cons: * May perform slower than Set.has() due to the need to traverse the entire array. However, this difference is usually negligible in most real-world scenarios. **Set.has():** Pros: * Generally faster and more efficient, especially for large datasets, since it only needs to check a single element against the set. * Reduces the search space, making it more suitable for situations where exact matching is required (e.g., in databases or data storage). Cons: * Less intuitive and may require additional setup or library dependencies for usage outside of Set objects. **Library/Implementation Considerations** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly used. However, the behavior of `includes()` and `has()` methods can be influenced by the underlying implementation, such as: * Browser-specific optimizations (e.g., WebKit vs Blink). * Platform-specific differences in performance characteristics. * Potential for future changes or updates to the specification. **Special JS Features/Syntax** In this benchmark, no special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly used. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers have introduced additional optimizations and performance enhancements for various operations, such as: * `Map` instances providing faster lookups than `Set`. * Using `Array.prototype.find()` instead of `includes()`. * `Symbol.has()` (not applicable in this case). **Alternative Implementations** For those interested in exploring alternative implementations or optimizing the code further, here are some examples: * For Array.includes(), consider using a more optimized version like `arr.indexOf(-1)`, which may perform better on specific browsers. * For Set.has(), you could use native WebAssembly (WASM) optimizations to improve performance for very large datasets. Keep in mind that optimizations and trade-offs will depend on the specific requirements, target audience, and platform of your application.
Related benchmarks:
Array.from vs. ... expansion
has vs includes
has vs includess
JS includes vs set
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?