Benchmark: test if include in array 2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.7.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var alreadyInitXEditableExpense = [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 94, 96, 97,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 108,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 115];

Tests:

case include
if ( !alreadyInitXEditableExpense.includes(90) ) { console.log("not 90"); }
case jquery
if (!jQuery.inArray( "90", alreadyInitXEditableExpense) ) { console.log("not 90"); }
case only console.log
console.log("not 90");
case jquery exist
if (jQuery.inArray( "94", alreadyInitXEditableExpense) ) { console.log("94 true"); }
case include exist
if ( alreadyInitXEditableExpense.includes(94) ) { console.log("94 true"); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
case include
case jquery
case only console.log
case jquery exist
case include exist

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
case include	380880.6 Ops/sec
case jquery	18360110.0 Ops/sec
case only console.log	359539.6 Ops/sec
case jquery exist	330452.4 Ops/sec
case include exist	373054.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark evaluates the performance of various methods for checking if a specific number is included in an array, utilizing both native JavaScript functionality and the jQuery library. Below is a detailed breakdown of the tested methods, their pros and cons, and additional considerations.

### Test Cases Description:
1. **Case Include (`alreadyInitXEditableExpense.includes(90)`):**
   - **Description:** This tests the native JavaScript `includes()` method to check if the value `90` is present in the `alreadyInitXEditableExpense` array.
   - **Implementation:** Utilizes the `Array.prototype.includes()` method, which returns `true` or `false` based on whether the value exists in the array.
   - **Performance:** Moderately fast compared to jQuery method but slower than the best-performing methods in this benchmark.

2. **Case jQuery (`jQuery.inArray( "90", alreadyInitXEditableExpense)`):**
   - **Description:** This uses the jQuery utility function `inArray()` to find the index of `90` in the array.
   - **Implementation:** Returns the index of the specified value, or `-1` if the value is not found. The comparison is effectively done in a conditional expression.
   - **Advantage:** jQuery is well-known and widely used in legacy codebases, allowing for easy integration.
   - **Performance:** This method shows the best performance in this benchmark, indicating it may be optimized for such lookups.

3. **Case Only Console Log (`console.log("not 90")`):**
   - **Description:** This test case serves as a baseline to measure performance without any comparison or check.
   - **Implementation:** Simply logs a message to the console.
   - **Performance:** The fastest execution because it does not perform any computation.

4. **Case jQuery Exist (`jQuery.inArray("94", alreadyInitXEditableExpense)`):**
   - **Description:** Checks if `94` is in the array using jQuery's `inArray()` function.
   - **Implementation:** Similar to the previous jQuery case but checks for a value that exists (`94`).
   - **Performance:** Expected to be efficient as it utilizes jQuery which appears optimized in this context.

5. **Case Include Exist (`alreadyInitXEditableExpense.includes(94)`):**
   - **Description:** Checks for the presence of `94` using the native `includes()` method.
   - **Performance:** A bit slower than the jQuery approach, as demonstrated by the benchmark results.

### Performance Results Overview:
- **jQuery Method** (`case jquery`): 18,360,110 executions per second, outperforming the alternatives significantly.
- **Native Include (`case include`)**: 380,880.625 executions per second, showing that while it's a more modern feature, it is not as performant in this specific benchmark.
- **Logging Only (`case only console.log`)**: 359,539.625 executions per second, serving as a control for measuring overhead.
- **Exist Checks**: Both the `case jquery exist` and `case include exist` tests have lower performance than the jQuery method for presence checks.

### Pros and Cons of Methods:
- **Native `includes()`:**
  - **Pros:** Simpler and part of the standard JavaScript specification; works with various data types.
  - **Cons:** Slower performance for large arrays in this benchmark.

- **jQuery `inArray()`:**
  - **Pros:** Generally optimized for performance, more compatibility in older systems.
  - **Cons:** Introduces an additional dependency on the jQuery library, which may not be necessary for projects that do not already use jQuery.

- **Console Log:**
  - **Pros:** Fast and trivial; useful for debugging without checks.
  - **Cons:** Offers no actual comparison or utility for real applications.

### Considerations:
- **Array Size & Complexity:** The performance of these methods may vary significantly depending on the size and composition of the array. For small arrays, differences may be negligible, while larger arrays may show more variation in time complexity.
- **Contextual Usage:** If a project uses jQuery for other functionalities, the jQuery method may be preferable. Conversely, if a lighter weight or modern JavaScript solution is possible, prefer the native `includes()` method for simplicity.

### Alternatives:
- For checking if an item exists in an array, you could also use:
  - **Set Data Structure:** For large datasets, using a Set (with `set.has(value)`) provides O(1) average time complexity for lookups.
  - **Filter Method:** Although not as performant, using `array.filter()` can provide more complex inclusion checks.

In conclusion, the benchmark demonstrates the performance trade-offs between native JavaScript and a widely used library, emphasizing the importance of selecting the right tool based on the project context and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

test if include in array 2 (version: 1)

test include

Comparing performance of: case include vs case jquery vs case only console.log vs case jquery exist vs case include exist

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

case include

case jquery

case only console.log

case jquery exist

case include exist

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 3 months ago):