Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes various array sizes

Script Preparation code:

var a10k = new Array(10000).fill(undefined).map((x,i) => i);
var b10k = new Set(a10k)
var a1k = new Array(1000).fill(undefined).map((x,i) => i);
var b1k = new Set(a1k);
var c = Math.floor(Math.random()*10000);
var d = Math.floor(Math.random()*1000);

Tests:

includes10k
return a10k.includes(c)
lookup10k
return b10k.has(c)
includes1k
return a1k.includes(d)
lookup1k
return b1k.has(d)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes10k
lookup10k
includes1k
lookup1k

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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for searching an array: `array.includes()` and `set.has()`. The test cases are created by preparing arrays and sets with varying sizes, using random values.

**Options Compared**

There are four options being compared:

1. **`array.includes()`**: This method searches for the existence of a value in an array.
2. **`set.has()`**: This method checks if a value exists in a set (a collection of unique values).
3. **`array.includes()` with large arrays**: The test case uses arrays of 10,000 elements (`a10k`) and smaller arrays of 1,000 elements (`a1k`).
4. **`set.has()` with large sets**: The test case uses sets created from the large arrays (`b10k` and `b1k`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **`array.includes()`**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, simple to implement.
	+ Cons: has to iterate through the entire array, which can be slow for large arrays.
* **`set.has()`**:
	+ Pros: faster lookup times, especially for large sets, since sets only store unique values and don't require searching.
	+ Cons: requires a set data structure, which can be slower to create than an array.

**Library: `Array.prototype.includes()`**

The `includes()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that searches for the existence of a value in an array. It's implemented using a binary search algorithm, which makes it relatively efficient.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax: None mentioned**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**

The preparation code creates four sets and arrays:

* `a10k` and `b10k`: large arrays with 10,000 elements, filled with random values.
* `a1k` and `b1k`: smaller arrays with 1,000 elements.
* `c` and `d`: two random integers used as test values.

The sets are created using the `Set()` constructor and the arrays are created using the `Array()` constructor. The preparation code also includes some additional setup to ensure consistent results across different browsers and environments.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches for searching in arrays include:

* **`indexOf()`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of a value in an array. It's slower than `includes()` but can be useful if you need to find the actual position of a value.
* **`filter()`**: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass a test (in this case, checking for existence).
* **`reduce()`**: This method reduces the array to a single value based on a callback function. It can be used to search for a value in an array.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to `array.includes()`.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes various array sizes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes10k vs lookup10k vs includes1k vs lookup1k

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes10k

lookup10k

includes1k

lookup1k

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):