Benchmark: Testyyrt - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
    arr.push(i);
}
var x = new Set(arr)

Tests:

Cvhhgffc
return arr.includes(9)
Tttttttt
return x.has(9)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cvhhgffc
Tttttttt

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two JavaScript functions: `includes` on an array (`arr`) and `has` on a Set object (`x`). The functions are called with a specific argument, `9`, which is expected to be present in both arrays and sets.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an array `arr` of 100,000 elements, each initialized to the value of the loop counter `i`. It then creates a new Set object `x` from this array. This code ensures that the benchmark is run with a consistent input data structure for both functions.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, which means no HTML content is being prepared or rendered before running the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

There are two individual test cases:

1. `Cvhhgffc`: Tests the `includes` method on the array `arr`.
2. `Tttttttt`: Tests the `has` method on the Set object `x`.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript `Set` object, which is a collection of unique values.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax being used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward test case that demonstrates the performance difference between two common array and set operations.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

For the `includes` method on an array:

* Pros:
	+ Widely supported by most browsers.
	+ Easy to implement.
* Cons:
	+ May perform poorly for large arrays, as it requires iterating over all elements to check if a value is present.
	+ Can be slow for arrays with many duplicates.

For the `has` method on a Set object:

* Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient, as Sets use hash tables under the hood.
	+ Avoids the need to iterate over large data structures.
* Cons:
	+ May not work in older browsers that don't support Sets (although it's unlikely).
	+ Requires creating a Set object, which can add overhead for small datasets.

**Other Alternatives**

For array operations:

* `indexOf()` method: Similar to `includes`, but returns the index of the first occurrence instead of a boolean value.
* `some()` and `every()` methods: Allow for more expressive code, but may be slower due to additional checks.

For set operations:

* `Array.prototype.includes()`: A polyfill or fallback for older browsers that don't support Sets.
* `Map` objects: Another data structure from the ECMAScript Standard Library, which can be used as an alternative to Sets.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same performance benefits as using the built-in Set object.

Related benchmarks:

Testyyrt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cvhhgffc vs Tttttttt

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cvhhgffc

Tttttttt

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):