Benchmark: test 20230201.3 - includs

Script Preparation code:

var orderChangeStatusCode = ['1010', '1015', '1020', '1030', '1011', '1016', '1021', '1031', '1012', '1017', '1022', '1032'];
var data = [
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1010' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1015' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1025' },
  { orderChangeStatusCode: '1035' },
];

Tests:

new
var temp = data?.map(goodData => { return orderChangeStatusCode.includes(goodData?.orderChangeStatusCode); }); console.log(temp)
old
var temp = data?.map(goodData => { return ( goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1010' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1015' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1020' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1030' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1011' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1016' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1021' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1031' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1012' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1017' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1022' || goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1032' ); }); console.log(temp)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new
old

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 is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if an element exists in a list using JavaScript. The test cases use a predefined array `data` containing 20 objects, each with a unique `orderChangeStatusCode` property.

**Approach 1: Using the `includes()` method (New)**

In this approach, we use the `includes()` method to check if an element exists in the `orderChangeStatusCode` list. The benchmark definition code is:
```javascript
var temp = data?.map(goodData => {
  return orderChangeStatusCode.includes(goodData?.orderChangeStatusCode);
});
console.log(temp);
```
This approach uses a simple and efficient way to check for membership in an array.

**Approach 2: Using multiple `===` checks (Old)**

In this approach, we use multiple `===` checks to check if the element exists in the `orderChangeStatusCode` list. The benchmark definition code is:
```javascript
var temp = data?.map(goodData => {
  return (
    goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1010' ||
    goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1015' ||
    // ...
    goodData.orderChangeStatusCode === '1032'
  );
});
console.log(temp);
```
This approach is more verbose and less efficient than the `includes()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Inclusion Method (New)**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, concise, and easy to read.
	+ Cons: Requires a specific library (`includes()` method) or built-in function (`Array.prototype.includes()`).
* **Multiple `===` Checks (Old)**:
	+ Pros: No external dependencies required.
	+ Cons: Verbose, less efficient, and harder to read.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the `includes()` method, which is a part of the JavaScript language specification. It does not require any additional libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to implement an alternative approach to check for membership in an array, you could consider using:

* `Array.prototype.includes()`: This method is similar to the `includes()` method but uses a built-in function.
* Custom implementation: You can create your own custom function to check for membership in an array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and readability compared to the `includes()` method.

Related benchmarks:

test 20230201.3 - includs (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: new vs old

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

new

old

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):