Benchmark: array includes vs set has

Script Preparation code:

var array = [
    'auto',
    'shrink',
    'no-shrink',
    'grow',
    'no-grow',
    'no-flex',
];

var aSet = new Set(array);

Tests:

Array.includes
var b = array.includes('no-flex') var c = array.includes('boop')
Set.has
var b = aSet.has('no-flex') var c = aSet.has('boop')

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 benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that compare the performance of `includes` method in arrays versus the `has` method on Sets. The tests are designed to measure which approach (array `includes` or Set `has`) is faster.

**Options compared:**

1. **Array `includes`**: This method checks if a specified value exists within an array.
2. **Set `has`**: This method checks if a specified value exists within a Set data structure.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Array `includes`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-supported in most modern browsers.
		- Easy to use and understand.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower for large datasets due to the need to iterate through the array.
		- Can be less efficient if the dataset is not sorted or has duplicate values.
* **Set `has`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Generally faster than `includes` for large datasets, as it uses a hash table for lookups.
		- More efficient when dealing with unique values or sets of data.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires the Set object to be created from an array, which can be slower if not done efficiently.
		- Not all browsers support Sets (although most modern ones do).

**Library and purpose:**

The `Set` object is a built-in JavaScript API that provides a collection of unique values. It's used here as a data structure to compare with arrays.

**Special JS features/syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives:**

For array lookups, other approaches could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.indexOf()` (which returns -1 if not found)
* Using `Array.prototype.includes()` (which is similar to `includes` but more concise)
* Implementing a custom binary search algorithm

For Set-based lookups, other alternatives might be:

* Using a different data structure like a Map or an object
* Using a third-party library that provides optimized Set operations

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer significant performance improvements over the tested `includes` and `has` methods.

The provided benchmark seems to focus on comparing the native JavaScript `includes` and `has` methods, making it a great starting point for testing and exploring different approaches.

Related benchmarks:

array includes vs set has (version: 0)

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):