Benchmark: david123test - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

clasicc
const list = [1,2,3,4,5,6]; console.log(list.includes(5));
set
const list = new Set([1,2,3,4,5,6]); console.log(list.has(5));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clasicc
set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
clasicc	291910.4 Ops/sec
set	235573.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks on different browsers and devices. In this case, there are two individual test cases: one using an array (`list.includes(5)`) and another using a Set (`new Set([1,2,3,4,5,6]).has(5)`).

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of `includes()` method on arrays with the `has()` method on Sets. The main differences between these two methods are:

*   `includes()`: This method searches for an element in the array and returns a boolean value indicating whether the element is found.
*   `has()`: This method checks if an element exists in the Set and returns a boolean value.

**Pros and Cons**

*   `includes()`:
    *   Pros: Widespread support, more intuitive for developers who are used to iterating over arrays. However, it may have slower performance compared to `has()` because of its iteration mechanism.
    *   Cons: May have slower performance due to the iteration mechanism, can be less efficient than `has()`.
*   `has()`: 
    *   Pros: Faster performance compared to `includes()` since Set operations are optimized for faster lookups. It's also more memory-efficient.
    *   Cons: Less intuitive and widely supported, might require more code changes when switching from arrays to Sets.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, it's worth noting that the `Set` data structure is a built-in part of JavaScript, making its use more accessible compared to third-party libraries for similar functionality.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in these benchmarks. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of `includes()` and `has()` methods within their respective data structures (arrays and Sets).

**Other alternatives**

If you were to consider alternative approaches, here are a few options:

*   **Loops**: Instead of using built-in methods like `includes()` or `has()`, you could use loops to iterate over arrays or Sets. This approach would be more control-oriented but also less efficient due to the manual iteration process.
*   **Third-party libraries**: Depending on your specific requirements, you might consider using third-party libraries that provide optimized Set operations or even custom data structures with better performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net's primary goal is to compare the performance of various JavaScript methods and features within a controlled environment. If you're looking for more control over your benchmarking process or want to explore specific use cases, alternative approaches like those mentioned above might be worth considering.

Related benchmarks:

david123test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: clasicc vs set

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

clasicc

set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):