Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes big data

Script Preparation code:

var a = [...Array(10000).keys()];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(5000)
lookup
return b.has(5000)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: `array.includes()` and `set.has()`. The test uses a large array of 10,000 elements to simulate big data.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`array.includes()`**: This method searches for a specific value (in this case, the number 5000) within an array. It returns `true` if the value is found and `false` otherwise.
2. **`set.has()`**: This method checks if a specific value exists in a Set object. In this benchmark, the Set contains all elements from the large array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`array.includes()`**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported by browsers.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large datasets due to the linear search algorithm.
2. **`set.has()`**:
	* Pros: Generally faster for large datasets since Sets use a more efficient data structure (hashing).
	* Cons: Requires creating a Set object, which can incur additional memory overhead.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, the `Set` library is used to create a Set object from the large array. The purpose of using a Set is to provide an alternative data structure that allows for efficient membership testing.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, here are some options:

1. **`Array.prototype.findIndex()`**: This method returns the index of the first element that matches the specified value (in this case, 5000). If no match is found, it returns -1.
2. **`Map.has()`**: Similar to `set.has()`, but using a Map object instead.

These alternatives can be used in similar scenarios where you need to search for a specific value within an array or dataset.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes big data (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

lookup

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):