Benchmark: String array includes vs if check anonymouse array

Script Preparation code:

var value = "charlie"
var i = 0

Tests:

Includes
if (["alpha", "bravo", "charlie", "delta", "echo", "foxtrot"].includes(value)) { ++i }
If
if (value == "bravo") { ++i } else if (value == "foxtrot") { ++i } else if (value == "delta") { ++i } else if (value == "echo") { ++i } else if (value == "alpha") { ++i } else if (value == "charlie") { ++i }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
If

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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is created using JSON, which provides a definition for the benchmark. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. "Includes"
2. "If"

**Test Cases: Includes**

This test case checks if the `includes()` method on an array can find a specific value (`value`) within it.

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var value = "charlie";
var i = 0;
```
The HTML preparation code is empty.

In this test, the browser is checking how fast it can execute the following code:
```javascript
if ([\"alpha\", \"bravo\", \"charlie\", \"delta\", \"echo\", \"foxtrot\"].includes(value)) {
    ++i;
}
```
Here are some pros and cons of using `includes()`:

Pros:

* Efficient way to check if an element is present in an array.
* Allows for concise code.

Cons:

* Requires the browser to perform a linear search through the array, which can be slow for large arrays.
* May not work as expected with non-numeric values (e.g., strings) in the array.

**Test Cases: If**

This test case checks if the browser can execute a series of `if` statements quickly.

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var value = "charlie";
var i = 0;
```
The HTML preparation code is empty.

In this test, the browser is checking how fast it can execute the following code:
```javascript
if (value == "bravo") {
    ++i;
} else if (value == "foxtrot") {
    ++i;
} else if (value == "delta") {
    ++i;
} else if (value == "echo") {
    ++i;
} else if (value == "alpha") {
    ++i;
} else if (value == "charlie") {
    ++i;
}
```
Here are some pros and cons of using `if` statements:

Pros:

* Can be faster than `includes()` for small arrays.
* Allows for more control over the flow of code.

Cons:

* More verbose code.
* Requires the browser to perform multiple comparisons, which can be slower.

**Library: String.prototype.includes()**

The `includes()` method is a part of the JavaScript standard library. It was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides an efficient way to check if an element is present in an array or string.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for this benchmark could be:

1. Using a different data structure, such as a `Set`, which would allow for faster lookup times.
2. Using a custom implementation of the search algorithm, optimized for performance.
3. Comparing the results with other languages or libraries that have different implementations of the same method.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

In this benchmark, we're using ES6+ syntax (`const` and `let` declarations) and `includes()` method, which are not specific to any particular browser version but are widely supported across modern browsers.

Keep in mind that some older browsers might not support these features or methods. The benchmark results should be interpreted with consideration of the target audience and the expected browser versions.

Related benchmarks:

String array includes vs if check anonymouse array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs If

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

If

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):