Benchmark: Array.includes vs String.includes only

Script Preparation code:

var testArray = ['foo', 'bar'];
var testString = "foo,bar";

Tests:

Array.includes
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; testArray.includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'bar'; testArray.includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; testArray.includes(testStrNotMatch);
String.includes
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; testString.includes(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'bar'; testString.includes(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; testString.includes(testStrNotMatch);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
String.includes

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript methods: `Array.includes` and `String.includes`. Both methods are used to check if a string exists within an array of strings. The goal is to determine which method is more efficient in terms of execution time.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Array.includes**: This test case creates an array of strings (`testArray`) and checks if each individual string (e.g., "foo", "bar", "baz") exists within the array using `Array.includes`.
2. **String.includes**: This test case uses a single string (`testString`) that contains multiple values separated by commas ("foo,bar"). The test checks if each individual value (e.g., "foo" and "bar") exists within the string using `String.includes`.

**Comparison**

The two methods are compared in terms of their execution time. The test case with the smaller execution time is considered to be more efficient.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Array.includes**: Pros:
	+ Can efficiently check if an element exists in a large array.
	+ Can handle arrays with multiple elements.
* Cons:
	+ May perform slower due to the overhead of searching through the array.
* **String.includes**: Pros:
	+ Can efficiently check if a substring exists within a string.
	+ Is often implemented as a more lightweight and optimized method compared to `Array.includes`.
* Cons:
	+ May perform slower for large strings or arrays with multiple elements.

**Library/Utility Used:**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the benchmark is using the built-in JavaScript methods `Array.includes` and `String.includes`, which are part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

The test cases use some JavaScript features, such as:

* String interpolation (`'foo,bar'`)
* Template literals (not explicitly used in this benchmark but implied by the string interpolation)

However, these features are not considered critical to understanding the benchmark's purpose or the comparison being made.

**Other Alternatives:**

If `Array.includes` and `String.includes` were not available, alternative methods could include:

* Using a for loop to iterate through the array or string
* Implementing a custom search algorithm
* Using regular expressions (regex) to match patterns in strings

However, these alternatives would likely result in less efficient performance compared to using the built-in `Array.includes` and `String.includes` methods.

In summary, the benchmark is designed to compare the efficiency of two JavaScript methods: `Array.includes` and `String.includes`. The test cases cover both scenarios where individual elements are checked against an array or string.

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes vs String.includes only (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs String.includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

String.includes

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):