Benchmark: Includes vs Direct access 2

Script Preparation code:

values1 = [];
for(i=0; i<500; i++){
  values1.push(i);
}

values2 = {};
for(i=0; i<500; i++){
  values2[i] = true;
}

Tests:

Includes
values1.includes(480)
Direct
values2[480]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
Direct

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested on this specific benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark is comparing two approaches to accessing an array element: `includes()` method versus direct array indexing (`[]`).

**Options compared**

There are two test cases:

1. **Includes**: This test case measures the performance of using the `includes()` method to search for a specific value (480) within the `values1` array.
2. **Direct**: This test case measures the performance of directly accessing an array element at index 480 (`values2[480]`) without using any methods.

**Pros and Cons**

**Includes**

Pros:

* Easy to read and maintain code
* Allows for flexible search patterns (e.g., searching by value, substring, etc.)
* Can be used in a more general-purpose context

Cons:

* May have performance overhead compared to direct indexing
* Can lead to slower execution times due to the method call

**Direct**

Pros:

* Typically faster than using `includes()` for simple searches
* Can lead to better performance when dealing with large arrays

Cons:

* Requires knowing the exact index of the desired element
* May result in more complex code, making it harder to read and maintain

**Other considerations**

When deciding between `includes()` and direct indexing, consider the specific use case and requirements. If you need flexibility or can't predict the index of the desired element, using `includes()` might be a better choice. However, if you know the exact index, direct indexing is likely to be faster.

**Library/Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some browsers (like Chrome) have built-in support for `includes()` method.

**Special JS features/syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. The code uses standard JavaScript features like arrays, loops, and conditional statements.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking to optimize array access performance, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Caching**: Store frequently accessed elements in a cache to avoid repeated indexing.
2. **Sparse arrays**: Use sparse arrays when dealing with large amounts of unused data to reduce memory allocation overhead.
3. **Cache-friendly data structures**: Design data structures that minimize cache misses and optimize memory access patterns.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional code and considerations, but they can lead to significant performance improvements in certain scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Includes vs Direct access 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs Direct

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

Direct

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):