Benchmark: Array.includes() vs String.includes()

Script Preparation code:

var ids = Array(100).fill().map((_, i) => ++i);
var serializedIds = `,${ids.join()},`;
var searchIds = [1, 50, 100, 150];
var searchSerializedIds = searchIds.map(id => `,${id},`);

Tests:

Array.includes()
searchIds.map(id => ids.includes(id));
String.includes()
searchSerializedIds.map(id => serializedIds.includes(id));

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance of  **`Array.includes()`** versus **`String.includes()`** for searching values within data structures.

Here's a breakdown:

* **What's being compared:** The benchmark compares two different methods for finding if a value exists within a collection:

* **`Array.includes()`:**  This is a built-in JavaScript method designed specifically to check if an element is present in an array. 
    * **`String.includes()`:** This method checks if a substring exists within a string. However, in this benchmark, it's being used somewhat creatively by converting the array into a comma-separated string (`serializedIds`) and then using `String.includes()` to search for the values within that string representation.

* **Pros & Cons:**

* **`Array.includes()`:**
        * **Pro:** Optimized for searching arrays, generally faster.
        * **Con:** Only works with arrays; not directly applicable to other data types like strings.

* **`String.includes()`:**
        * **Pro:** Can be used on strings, which might offer a workaround in some specific scenarios. 
        * **Con:** Less efficient for searching within arrays compared to `Array.includes()`. In this case, the conversion to and from string format adds overhead, making it significantly slower.

* **Alternatives:**

* Other JavaScript array methods like `indexOf()` or filtering (`filter()`) could also be used for value search operations in arrays. The best alternative depends on the specific use case and desired outcome.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

Related benchmarks:

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

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):