Benchmark: set.has vs. array.includes of IPs

Script Preparation code:

var a = [
  '123.39.218.212',
  '147.31.131.14',
  '27.154.247.128',
];
var b = new Set(a)

Tests:

includes
return a.includes(9)
lookup
return b.has(9)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
lookup

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

lookup

111.6M/s

includes

63.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lookup	111,597,576 Ops/sec
includes	63,018,788 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON tests the performance of two different approaches for checking the presence of a value in a collection: using `Array.prototype.includes` against `Set.prototype.has`.

### Description of the Options Compared

1. **Array.prototype.includes()**:
   - **Use Case**: This method checks if an array includes a certain value among its entries, returning `true` or `false` as appropriate.
   - **Implementation**: The method is called on an array (in this case, `a`) and is designed to be straightforward but less efficient for large datasets, as it needs to check each element linearly until it finds a match or reaches the end.

2. **Set.prototype.has()**:
   - **Use Case**: This method checks if a value exists in a Set, which is an unordered collection of unique values.
   - **Implementation**: The method is invoked on a Set (in this case, `b`) and utilizes the optimized lookup capabilities of Set. Because Sets are implemented as hash tables, they typically provide a much faster lookup time, especially for larger datasets.

### Performance Considerations

- **Pros of using `Array.includes()`**:
  - Simplicity: Very easy to read and use.
  - Familiarity: Widely used and understood by JavaScript developers.

- **Cons of using `Array.includes()`**:
  - Time Complexity: On average, searching for a value in an array has O(n) time complexity, which can become a bottleneck if the array is large.
  
- **Pros of using `Set.has()`**:
  - Fast Lookups: Offers average-case O(1) time complexity due to the underlying hash table implementation, making it significantly faster for large collections.
  - Uniqueness: Automatically handles duplicates so only unique values need to be stored.

- **Cons of using `Set.has()`**:
  - Overhead: There is a slight overhead in creation and memory usage as it requires the data to be stored in a Set initially.
  - Limited Operations: While Sets provide fast lookups, they do not offer as many methods for manipulation compared to arrays (e.g., they do not support operations like slicing).

### Alternative Approaches

1. **Object for Lookup**:
   - Instead of using an array or a Set, one could use an object to store values as keys with `true` or `false` as the value (e.g., `{ '123.39.218.212': true }`). Lookup would then also be O(1) on average, similar to using a Set.

2. **Using a Map**:
   - A Map can also be considered, which would provide O(1) lookup similar to a Set but allows more complex values to be stored.

3. **Sorting the Array**:
   - If the dataset does not change frequently, one could sort the array and use binary search (O(log n)) for lookups, although this would require the overhead of maintaining a sorted state.

4. **For larger datasets**:
   - Depending on the size and nature of the data, using a more complex structure like a binary search tree or a trie might be appropriate, although this adds complexity.

### Conclusion

In summary, this benchmark tests two common approaches for presence checking in JavaScript: `Array.includes()` and `Set.has()`. The results from the latest benchmark indicate that `Set.has()` is significantly faster than `Array.includes()`, further highlighting the efficiency of using Sets for large collections or frequent lookups. Software engineers should choose the approach based on the specific use case, size of the dataset, and performance requirements.

set.has vs. array.includes of IPs (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `includes vs lookup`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

lookup

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 of IPs (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: includes vs lookup

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

includes

lookup

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `includes vs lookup`