Benchmark: array.includes vs set.has on 3 strings v2

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

const arr = [];
const obj = {};
const elementsCount = 3;
for (let i = 0; i < elementsCount; i++) {
  	const s = new String(i);
	arr.push(s);
    obj[s] = true;
};
const set = new Set(arr);
Object.freeze(obj);

Tests:

array.includes
for (let i = 0; i < elementsCount; i++) { arr.includes(arr[i]); };
set.has
for (let i = 0; i < elementsCount; i++) { set.has(arr[i]); };
Object.hasOwn
for (let i = 0; i < elementsCount; i++) { Object.hasOwn(obj, arr[i]); };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array.includes
set.has
Object.hasOwn

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/140.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 140 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

set.has

30.4M/s

array.includes

25.5M/s

Object.hasOwn

2.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ set.has	30,420,774 Ops/sec
array.includes	25,518,114 Ops/sec
Object.hasOwn	2,792,408 Ops/sec

array.includes vs set.has on 3 strings v2 (version: 1)

3 elements and each element check once

Comparing performance of: `array.includes vs set.has vs Object.hasOwn`

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

array.includes

set.has

Object.hasOwn

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

array.includes vs set.has on 3 strings v2 (version: 1)

3 elements and each element check once

Comparing performance of: array.includes vs set.has vs Object.hasOwn

Created: 7 months ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

array.includes

set.has

Object.hasOwn

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Comparing performance of: `array.includes vs set.has vs Object.hasOwn`