Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes (strings; set generation inline)

Script Preparation code:

var a = ['1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9', '10'];

Tests:

includes 1
return a.includes('1')
includes 10
return a.includes('10')
lookup 1
return new Set(a).has('1')
lookup 10
return new Set(a).has('10')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes 1
includes 10
lookup 1
lookup 10

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

includes 1

99.3M/s

includes 10

62.5M/s

lookup 10

5.8M/s

lookup 1

5.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ includes 1	99,300,736 Ops/sec
includes 10	62,487,556 Ops/sec
lookup 10	5,757,537 Ops/sec
lookup 1	5,672,828 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark outlined in the provided JSON measures and compares the performance of two different approaches to check for the existence of string elements in an array: using the `Array.includes()` method and using a `Set` with the `Set.has()` method. The benchmark code sets up an array of strings from '1' to '10', and it runs two types of tests: inclusion checks on the array and set lookups.

### Approaches Compared

1. **Array.includes()**
   - **Usage in Tests:** 
     - `a.includes('1')` - Checks if the string '1' is included in the array.
     - `a.includes('10')` - Checks if the string '10' is included in the array.
   - **Performance (Executions Per Second):**
     - `includes 1`: 55,879,268.0
     - `includes 10`: 47,879,072.0

2. **Set.has()**
   - **Usage in Tests:**
     - `new Set(a).has('1')` - Creates a Set from the array and checks if '1' exists in the Set.
     - `new Set(a).has('10')` - Creates a Set from the array and checks if '10' exists in the Set.
   - **Performance (Executions Per Second):**
     - `lookup 1`: 4,217,641.5
     - `lookup 10`: 3,826,230.25

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### Array.includes()
- **Pros:**
  - Simplicity: The method is straightforward and easy to use.
  - No extra data structure overhead: You don't need to create a Set if you're checking an array that is already available.

- **Cons:**
  - Performance: This method has a linear time complexity O(n), meaning in the worst case, it will check each item in the array until it finds a match or confirms absence. This can result in slower performance, especially if the array size increases.

#### Set.has()
- **Pros:**
  - Performance: Checking for existence in a Set is average O(1) time complexity, meaning it can check for items very quickly once the Set is created.
  - Ideal for frequent lookups: If you need to check many items frequently against a collection, creating a Set from an array initially can lead to faster lookups.

- **Cons:**
  - Overhead: Creating a Set from the array incurs additional overhead, as it requires constructing a new data structure regardless of whether the checks are done multiple times.
  - Memory Usage: Using a Set adds extra memory usage due to storing the Set itself.

### Other Considerations
When choosing between these two methods, it's important to consider the context:
- If you're performing a single or a few checks on a small, fixed array, using `Array.includes()` is fine and less resource-intensive.
- For larger datasets or when multiple lookups are necessary, using a `Set` can be worth the overhead.

### Alternatives to Consider
1. **Array.indexOf()**: An older method that can check for existence, but like `includes()`, it has a time complexity of O(n).
2. **Filtered Approach**: You could use `Array.filter()` or `Array.find()` but they may also have similar performance issues as `includes()` and less clarity for existence checks.
3. **Object Lookup**: In some scenarios, using an object as a map (where properties are keys) can emulate set-like behavior with constant time lookups.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides valuable insights into the efficiency of string lookups in JavaScript, illustrating the trade-offs between simplicity and performance, particularly between `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()`. The choice between them should be guided by the specific requirements of the tasks being performed.

set.has vs. array.includes (strings; set generation inline) (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `includes 1 vs includes 10 vs lookup 1 vs lookup 10`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes 1

includes 10

lookup 1

lookup 10

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

set.has vs. array.includes (strings; set generation inline) (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: includes 1 vs includes 10 vs lookup 1 vs lookup 10

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes 1

includes 10

lookup 1

lookup 10

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `includes 1 vs includes 10 vs lookup 1 vs lookup 10`