Benchmark: equality vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var stringToMatch = 'hello';

Tests:

Array.includes
['banana'].includes(stringToMatch)
Or chain
stringToMatch === 'banana'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
Or chain

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:142.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/142.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 142 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes	60960072.0 Ops/sec
Or chain	1580741120.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `Array.includes()` and writing an equality check with three equals (`===`) operators. The goal is to determine which approach incurs a significant performance deficit.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`['banana'].includes(stringToMatch)`**: This option uses the `Array.includes()` method, which checks if a specified value exists within an array.
2. **`stringToMatch === 'banana'`**: This option performs an equality check using three equals (`===`) operators.

**Pros and Cons**

**`Array.includes()`**

Pros:

* Easier to read and maintain, as it clearly conveys the intent of checking if a value exists within an array.
* Can be more flexible, as `includes()` can be used with arrays of any type, not just strings.

Cons:

* May incur performance overhead due to the need to search through the array for the specified value.
* Can lead to slower performance compared to equality checks when dealing with large arrays or complex data structures.

**Equality Check (`===`)**

Pros:

* Typically faster than `Array.includes()`, as it can use optimized internal implementations and caching mechanisms.
* Can be more suitable for scenarios where exact matching is required, such as string comparisons.

Cons:

* May require more manual effort to write and maintain, especially when dealing with complex data structures or large arrays.
* Can lead to slower performance if not implemented correctly, e.g., using unnecessary checks or operations.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating the performance of these approaches, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Array size and complexity
* Data structure requirements (e.g., string vs. object)
* Platform and browser specificity
* Optimization techniques (e.g., caching, memoization)

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses a library called `stringToMatch`, which is assigned the value `'hello'`. This library is not explicitly mentioned in the JSON, but it's implied that the `stringToMatch` variable will be used as a test case value.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code appears to be standard JavaScript, using basic operators and data structures.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing performance in JavaScript benchmarks include:

* Using a loop with `if` statements instead of `Array.includes()`
* Employing lazy evaluation techniques (e.g., memoization) to optimize the equality check
* Utilizing built-in functions like `Set` or `Map` for more efficient data storage and lookup
* Implementing custom optimization strategies, such as caching or parallel execution

Related benchmarks:

equality vs includes (version: 0)

how much of a performance deficit you can expect from using Array.includes instead of writing an equality check

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs Or chain

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

Or chain

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):