Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes vs plain object (100 000)

Script Preparation code:

var length = 100000;
var a = Array.from({
    length
}, (e, i) => i+1);
var b = new Set(a);
var c = Object.fromEntries(a.map(e => [e, true]));
var best = 1;
var worst = length;
var middle = length / 2;

Tests:

Array.includes (best scenario)
return a.includes(best)
Set.has
return b.has(best)
Object access
return c[best]
Array.includes (middle scenario)
return a.includes(middle)
Array.includes (worst scenario)
return a.includes(worst)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes (best scenario)
Set.has
Object access
Array.includes (middle scenario)
Array.includes (worst scenario)

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/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.includes (best scenario)	114573856.0 Ops/sec
Set.has	184906848.0 Ops/sec
Object access	161323600.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes (middle scenario)	200957.1 Ops/sec
Array.includes (worst scenario)	99517.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes vs plain object (100 000) (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Array.includes (best scenario) vs Set.has vs Object access vs Array.includes (middle scenario) vs Array.includes (worst scenario)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes (best scenario)

Set.has

Object access

Array.includes (middle scenario)

Array.includes (worst scenario)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A