Benchmark: Array.includes() vs Set.has() small

Array.includes() vs Set.has() small (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Array.includes, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements vs Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Set.has, 1 000 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements`

Created: 15 days ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Script Preparation code:

function getArray(length) {
  const result = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    result.push(i + 'abc'); // In case the browser does some sort of optimization for arrays with only integers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  }
  return result;
}

function getRandomTargetElement(arrayLength) {
  const index = Math.floor(Math.random() * arrayLength);
  return index + 'abc';
}


array_small = getArray(20);
array_large = getArray(365);

set_small = new Set(array_small);
set_large = new Set(array_large);

Tests:

Array.includes, 10 000 elements
array_small.includes(getRandomTargetElement(20));
Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements
array_large.includes(getRandomTargetElement(365))
Set.has, 10 000 elements
set_small.has(getRandomTargetElement(20))
Set.has, 1 000 000 elements
set_large.has(getRandomTargetElement(365))
Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements
const target = getRandomTargetElement(20); const set = new Set(array_small); set.has(target)
Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements
const set = new Set(array_small); for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { const target = getRandomTargetElement(20); set.has(target) }
Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { const target = getRandomTargetElement(20); array_small.includes(target) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes, 10 000 elements
Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements
Set.has, 10 000 elements
Set.has, 1 000 000 elements
Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements
Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements
Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements

Array.includes() vs Set.has() small (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Array.includes, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements vs Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Set.has, 1 000 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements`

Created: 15 days ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.includes, 10 000 elements

Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements

Set.has, 10 000 elements

Set.has, 1 000 000 elements

Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements

Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements

Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Array.includes() vs Set.has() small (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Array.includes, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements vs Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Set.has, 1 000 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements

Created: 15 days ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.includes, 10 000 elements

Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements

Set.has, 10 000 elements

Set.has, 1 000 000 elements

Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements

Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements

Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Comparing performance of: `Array.includes, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes, 1 000 000 elements vs Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Set.has, 1 000 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has, 10 000 elements vs Array to Set + Set.has x 100, 10 000 elements vs Array.includes x 100, 10 000 elements`