Benchmark: Array.includes vs String.includes vs Object Hashmap vs Set

Script Preparation code:

var testArray = ['foo', 'bar'];
var testString = "foo,bar";
var objectHash = {
  foo: true,
  bar: true,
};
var testSet = new Set(testArray);

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);
Object Hash-map
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; objectHash[testStrFirst]; const testStrSecond = 'bar'; objectHash[testStrSecond]; const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; objectHash[testStrNotMatch];
ES6 Set
const testStrFirst = 'foo'; testSet.has(testStrFirst); const testStrSecond = 'bar'; testSet.has(testStrSecond); const testStrNotMatch = 'baz'; testSet.has(testStrNotMatch);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
String.includes
Object Hash-map
ES6 Set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	5057903.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	3635566.8 Ops/sec
Object Hash-map	5239265.0 Ops/sec
ES6 Set	4447096.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its various components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different methods for matching a string against multiple possibilities:

1. `Array.includes`
2. `String.includes`
3. Using an object hash map (`objectHash`)
4. Using an ES6 Set (`testSet`)

**Options Compared**

Each option has its pros and cons:

### Array.includes

* Pros:
	+ Widely supported and well-maintained.
	+ Fast and efficient for matching against a large array of values.
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower than other options for small arrays or when using modern browsers with optimized string lookup algorithms.

### String.includes

* Pros:
	+ Specifically designed for string matching, making it more efficient than Array.includes for larger strings.
	+ Fast and reliable for modern browsers.
* Cons:
	+ Less flexible than Array.includes, as it only works with strings.

### Object Hash Map (`objectHash`)

* Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient for lookup operations in an object.
	+ Can be used with any type of data (not just strings).
* Cons:
	+ Requires manual configuration and management of the hash map.
	+ May not perform as well as Array.includes or String.includes for large datasets.

### ES6 Set (`testSet`)

* Pros:
	+ Efficient and fast lookup operations, similar to an object hash map.
	+ Automatically managed and updated by the Set data structure.
* Cons:
	+ Requires modern browsers that support the ES6 Set API.
	+ May not perform as well as Array.includes or String.includes for very large datasets.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

1. `objectHash`: A simple object hash map implementation, likely created by MeasureThat.net to provide a basic comparison point.
2. `testSet`: The native ES6 Set API, used in modern browsers to represent an unordered collection of unique values.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach for string matching, consider the following factors:

1. **Data size**: Larger datasets may benefit from more efficient algorithms like Array.includes or String.includes.
2. **Browser support**: If you need to support older browsers, choose a method that works across multiple versions (e.g., Array.includes).
3. **Customization and control**: Object hash maps and ES6 Sets offer more flexibility for customizing and managing the matching process.

**Alternatives**

If you don't have access to the MeasureThat.net benchmark or want to explore other options, consider using:

1. `String.prototype.indexOf()`: Similar to String.includes, but returns the index of the first match instead of a boolean result.
2. `Array.prototype.findIndex()`: Similar to Array.includes, but returns the index of the first match instead of a boolean result.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same performance as the built-in methods used in the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Array.includes vs String.includes vs Object Hashmap vs Set (version: 0)

Matching a string against more than one possibility.

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs String.includes vs Object Hash-map vs ES6 Set

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

String.includes

Object Hash-map

ES6 Set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):