Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
set.has vs. array.includes 2333
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
includes vs lookup
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = ['1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9', '10']; var b = new Set(a)
Tests:
includes
return a.includes('9')
lookup
return b.has('9')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
includes
lookup
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 explain the benchmark and its various components. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case for measuring the performance difference between two approaches: `set.has` and `array.includes`. The benchmark is designed to compare the execution time of these two methods on an array of 10 elements. Here's what's being tested: * `set.has`: This method checks if an element exists in a Set object. * `array.includes`: This method returns a boolean value indicating whether an element exists in an array. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of `set.has` and `array.includes` on a specific input: an array containing 10 elements from '1' to '10', and a Set object created from this array. **Pros and Cons** * **set.has**: + Pros: More efficient for large datasets, as it uses a hash table under the hood, allowing for faster lookups. + Cons: May be slower for small datasets or single-element checks due to the overhead of creating and manipulating a Set object. * **array.includes**: + Pros: Suitable for most use cases, including small datasets and single-element checks, as it's a simple and well-optimized method. + Cons: May be slower for large datasets due to the linear search algorithm used. In general, `set.has` is a good choice when working with large datasets or needing fast lookup performance. On the other hand, `array.includes` is a more versatile option that works well for most use cases. **Library and Special JS Features** * **Set object**: The Set object is a built-in JavaScript data structure introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It's designed to provide fast and efficient membership testing. * **No special JS features or syntax are used in this benchmark.** **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative methods, consider the following: * `array.indexOf()` or `array.lastIndexOf()`: These methods return the index of the first occurrence of an element, which can be slower than `array.includes`. * `Binary Search**: For large datasets, a binary search algorithm can provide faster lookup performance. However, this requires sorting the data first, which may not be necessary for small to medium-sized datasets. * Custom implementation: Depending on your specific use case, you might consider implementing your own optimized lookup method. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs and requirements, so it's essential to evaluate their suitability based on your specific needs.
Related benchmarks:
convert to set + set.has vs. array.includes
Includes (array) vs Has (Set)
Small n set vs array
array.includes vs. set.has on the fly
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?