Benchmark: Set Has vs Array Includes Smaller

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array.from(Array(5), (x, index) => index + 1).sort(() => 0.5 - Math.random());
var set = new Set(array);

Tests:

Array Includes
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array.includes(i); }
Set Has
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { set.has(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array Includes
Set Has

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 JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()`. The purpose of this benchmark is to determine which method is more efficient for checking if an element exists in a given array or set.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates a random array of numbers from 0 to 4 (inclusive) and sorts it. This array will be used as the input data for both `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()`. The sorting is done using a subtle trick: `(() => 0.5 - Math.random())` creates an unpredictable order, which helps to avoid optimizations that might favor one method over the other.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, indicating that no HTML elements are involved in this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Array Includes**: This test case uses a simple loop to iterate over the array and call `array.includes(i)` for each element.
2. **Set Has**: This test case uses another simple loop to iterate over the set and call `set.has(i)` for each element.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `Array.from()` method is used to create an array from an iterable (in this case, a callback function that generates numbers). The `Set` class is also used to create a new set from the array.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Array.from()` and `Set` is a modern JavaScript feature that was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here's a brief analysis of the two approaches:

* **Array Includes**: This method is generally faster for small to medium-sized arrays because it uses a linear search algorithm. However, as the array size increases, the time complexity becomes O(n), which can be slower than other methods.
* **Set Has**: For large datasets, `Set.has()` tends to perform better due to its O(1) average time complexity, making it more efficient for lookup operations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are a few:

* **Regular expressions**: You could use regular expressions to achieve the same result as `Array.includes()`. However, this would likely be slower than both `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()`.
* **Sparse arrays**: If you're working with sparse arrays (i.e., arrays where most elements are null or undefined), you might be able to optimize the lookup by using a sparse array data structure. However, this would require significant changes to the implementation.
* **Native libraries**: Depending on your target platform and browser support, you could use native libraries like `nativeArray.includes()` or `Set.prototype.has()` (if available) for improved performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own trade-offs in terms of compatibility, maintainability, and optimization opportunities.

Related benchmarks:

Set Has vs Array Includes Smaller (version: 0)

Comparing performance of Set.has() vs Array.includes()

Comparing performance of: Array Includes vs Set Has

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array Includes

Set Has

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):