Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes at scale

Script Preparation code:

var a = Array.from(new Array(100000).keys());
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes (hit)
return a.includes(99999)
lookup (hit)
return b.has(99999)
includes (miss)
return a.includes(100001)
lookup (miss)
return b.has(100001)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes (hit)
lookup (hit)
includes (miss)
lookup (miss)

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 various components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines a JavaScript benchmark that compares two approaches for checking if an element exists in an array: `set.has` (lookup) and `array.includes`. The benchmark aims to measure the performance of these two methods at scale, by creating a large set and array from 0 to 99,999.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates:

1. A large array `a` containing 100,000 elements from 0 to 99,999 using `Array.from(new Array(100000).keys())`.
2. A new Set object `b` initialized with the elements of array `a`.

This setup prepares the test environment by creating a large dataset for comparison.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four individual test cases:

1. **includes (hit)**: This test case checks if an element exists in the array `a` using the `includes()` method and passes a value that is present in the array (99,999).
2. **lookup (hit)**: This test case checks if an element exists in the Set object `b` using the `has()` method and passes a value that is present in the set.
3. **includes (miss)**: This test case checks if an element exists in the array `a` using the `includes()` method and passes a value that is not present in the array (100,001).
4. **lookup (miss)**: This test case checks if an element exists in the Set object `b` using the `has()` method and passes a value that is not present in the set.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results are provided for each of the four test cases:

1. **includes (hit)**: Chrome 105, Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15.7, with an execution rate of approximately 163,746 executions per second.
2. **lookup (hit)**: Chrome 105, Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15.7, with an execution rate of approximately 162,573 executions per second.
3. **includes (miss)**: Chrome 105, Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15.7, with an execution rate of approximately 119,964 executions per second.
4. **lookup (miss)**: Chrome 105, Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15.7, with an execution rate of approximately 118,967 executions per second.

**Comparison and Analysis**

The benchmark results show that:

* The `includes()` method is faster for both hit and miss cases compared to the `has()` method (lookup).
* The `has()` method (lookup) performs better when the value exists in the set, but slower for missing values.
* The execution rates are similar between hit and miss cases for both methods.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

1. **array.includes**: Pros:
	* Faster for large arrays.
	* Easy to use and understand.
Cons:
	* May be slower for smaller datasets due to overhead.
2. **set.has**: Pros:
	* More efficient for large sets, as they can take advantage of hash table optimizations.
	* Can be faster than `includes()` for missing values.
Cons:
	* Requires a Set object, which may have additional memory and initialization costs.

**Other Considerations**

1. **JavaScript Features**: This benchmark does not explicitly test any special JavaScript features or syntax.
2. **Alternative Implementations**: Other approaches to check if an element exists in an array or set might include using `indexOf()`, `binarySearch()`, or custom iteration methods.

In summary, this benchmark provides a comparison between the performance of two common approaches for checking if an element exists in an array: `array.includes` and `set.has`. The results suggest that `array.includes` is generally faster for both hit and miss cases, but `set.has` may offer better performance for large sets.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes at scale (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes (hit) vs lookup (hit) vs includes (miss) vs lookup (miss)

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes (hit)

lookup (hit)

includes (miss)

lookup (miss)

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):