Benchmark: indexOf vs set - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
for (var i=0; i<300; ++i) {
  	array.push('00' + i);
}

function hasWithIndexOf(needle) {
	return array.indexOf(needle) !== -1;
}

var set = new Set(array);

function hasWithMap(needle) {
	return set.has(needle);
}

Tests:

indexOf
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { hasWithIndexOf('404'); }
map
for (var i=0; i<100; ++i) { hasWithMap('404'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
map

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 MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to search for an element within an array:

1. `indexOf`
2. Using a `Set` data structure

**What is being tested?**

In the "Benchmark Definition" JSON, we see that the script creates an array of 300 elements and then defines two functions:

* `hasWithIndexOf(needle)`: uses the `array.indexOf(needle)` method to search for the presence of a given element.
* `hasWithMap(needle)`: uses a `Set` data structure to store the array elements and checks if the given element is present in the set using the `set.has(needle)` method.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`indexOf`**: uses the built-in `array.indexOf()` method, which iterates through the array from the beginning until it finds a match.
2. **`Set`**: uses a `Set` data structure to store the array elements and checks for membership using the `set.has()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`indexOf`**:
	+ Pros: simple and easy to implement, works well for small arrays.
	+ Cons: has a linear search time complexity (O(n)), which can be slow for large arrays.
* **`Set`**:
	+ Pros: provides fast lookup times (O(1) on average), ideal for large datasets.
	+ Cons: requires additional memory to store the Set, and may not be suitable for small arrays or datasets with low cardinality.

**Library used**

The `Set` data structure is a built-in JavaScript API that allows you to create a collection of unique values.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. However, if we were to expand on the benchmark, we could explore other features like:

* Using `Map` instead of `Set`
* Using a library like Lodash for utility functions
* Using a different data structure, like a binary search tree

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be explored in this benchmark include:

1. **Binary Search**: an algorithm that can find an element in a sorted array in O(log n) time.
2. **Hashing**: using a hash table to store the elements and check for membership, which can have an average time complexity of O(1).
3. **Skiplists**: a data structure that combines the benefits of linked lists and trees to achieve fast search times.

These alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code, but could provide interesting insights into different trade-offs between performance, memory usage, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

indexOf vs set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs map

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

map

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):