Benchmark: varaiabel check includes vs direct

Script Preparation code:

var model = {
  type: 'a'
}

Tests:

direct
var c1 = model.type === 'a'; var c1 = model.type === 'b'; var c1 = model.type === 'c'; var c1 = model.type === 'd'; var c1 = model.type === 'e';
includes
['a'].includes(model.type)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct
includes

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The test compares two approaches to check if a value belongs to an array or not:

1. Direct comparison using `===` operator.
2. Using the `includes()` method.

**Options compared:**

* **Direct comparison**: This approach uses the triple equals (`===`) operator to directly compare the value with `'a'`. If the value matches, it assigns a truthy value to `c1`.
* **Includes method**: This approach uses the `includes()` method on an array containing the string `'a'`. If the value is found in the array, it returns `true`.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Direct comparison**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward, and likely to be optimized by JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons: May lead to unnecessary computations if the value doesn't match, as the expression evaluates to a boolean result.
* **Includes method**:
	+ Pros: More readable, can handle partial matches or prefixes/suffixes, and may be more efficient for larger arrays.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to array lookups.

**Library/ Framework considerations:**

There is no library or framework explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. However, the `includes()` method uses the `Array.prototype.includes()` method, which is a part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS features/syntax:**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require explanation beyond basic JavaScript concepts.

**Other alternatives:**

For this specific problem, there are no alternative approaches that come to mind. However, in general, other approaches could include:

* Using `in` operator instead of `includes()`
* Using a custom function or method to check for membership
* Using a different data structure (e.g., set) instead of an array

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

Related benchmarks:

varaiabel check includes vs direct (version: 0)

aa

Comparing performance of: direct vs includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct

includes

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):