Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
cached includes vs functional some
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
some vs includes
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var commands = ['LOGEVENTS', 'RESETPWA'] var newStr = 'LOGEVEN'
Tests:
some
const val1 = commands.some((c) => c.toUpperCase() === newStr.toUpperCase())
includes
const upperCaseCommands = commands.map((c) => c.toUpperCase()); const val2 = upperCaseCommands.includes(newStr.toUpperCase())
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
some
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and what pros/cons come with each approach. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by two test cases: 1. `some`: This test checks if an element exists in an array using the `some()` method. 2. `includes`: This test checks if an element exists in an array using the `includes()` method. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code defines two variables: * `commands`: An array of strings containing two commands: `'LOGEVENTS'` and `'RESETPWA'`. * `newStr`: A string variable assigned the value of `'LOGEVEN'`, which is a subset of `'LOGEVENTS'`. **Html Preparation Code** There is no HTML preparation code, indicating that this benchmark is purely JavaScript-related. **Options Compared** The two test cases compare the performance of two different approaches: 1. `some()`: This method iterates over the array and returns `true` as soon as it finds a match. 2. `includes()`: This method uses a binary search algorithm to find the element in the array, which is more efficient than iterating over the entire array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. `some()`: * Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and can be faster for small arrays or arrays with many matches. * Cons: Can be slow for large arrays, as it iterates over each element until it finds a match. 2. `includes()`: * Pros: Faster than `some()` for large arrays, thanks to the binary search algorithm. * Cons: May have a higher overhead due to the additional computation required by the binary search. **Library** None of the test cases use any external libraries. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in these test cases. They are standard JavaScript methods and variables. **Benchmark Result** The latest benchmark result shows the execution counts per second for each test case: * `includes`: 8,414,153.0 executions per second * `some`: 6,386,427.5 executions per second This suggests that the `includes()` method is faster than the `some()` method in this specific scenario. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to add more test cases or alternatives, you could consider: * Using a different data structure (e.g., sets instead of arrays) * Adding more elements to the array to increase its size * Using different search methods (e.g., `forEach()`, `filter()`) * Comparing performance with other JavaScript methods for similar operations (e.g., `indexOf()` vs. `includes()`) Keep in mind that the choice of algorithm and data structure depends on the specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
Console.log vs Empty log
Log Test
with loggingbut better
console log benchmark
console-19281589175831
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?