Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
bitwise vs compare vs includes
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
bitwise vs compare vs includes
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = ['a', 'b', 'c']
Tests:
bitwise
!!~arr.indexOf('c')
compare
arr.indexOf('c') > -1
includes
arr.includes('c')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
bitwise
compare
includes
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 134 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
bitwise
47874012.0 Ops/sec
compare
48406576.0 Ops/sec
includes
41835488.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The given benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different methods for checking if an element exists in an array: bitwise operation (`!!~arr.indexOf('c')`), comparison using `>` (`arr.indexOf('c') > -1`), and includes method (`arr.includes('c')`). The goal is to determine which method is the most efficient. **Test Cases** There are three test cases: 1. **Bitwise**: `!!~arr.indexOf('c')` * This test case uses bitwise operation to check if 'c' exists in the array. * `!!~` is a bitwise NOT operator (~) that flips all bits and then applies two's complement to the result. The `!!` part converts this result back to a boolean value (0 for false, 1 for true). This method is often referred to as "bitwise negation" or "arithmetic negation". * Pros: Can be faster than comparison methods since it's a single operation. * Cons: Less readable and maintainable due to its unconventional syntax. 2. **Comparison**: `arr.indexOf('c') > -1` * This test case uses the traditional comparison method, where `indexOf` returns the index of 'c' if found (or -1 if not), and then the result is compared with -1 using the greater-than operator (`>`). * Pros: More readable and maintainable than bitwise methods. * Cons: Requires a second operation to convert the result to a boolean value, which can be slower than the bitwise method. 3. **Includes**: `arr.includes('c')` * This test case uses the includes method provided by modern JavaScript arrays (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). * Pros: Most readable and maintainable of the three methods, as it clearly conveys its intent. * Cons: May be slower than bitwise methods due to its additional operation. **Library and Special JS Features** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, some features like `!!~` rely on the fact that JavaScript supports bitwise operations and two's complement arithmetic. The includes method relies on the modern array prototype. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for checking if an element exists in an array include: * Using a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array: `for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { if (arr[i] === 'c') { ... } }` * Using `in` operator (not commonly used for this purpose): `if ('c' in arr) { ... }` * Using `Array.prototype.some()` method: `arr.some(function(element) { return element === 'c'; })` Keep in mind that these alternatives might be slower and less efficient than the methods tested in the benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
bitwise operator vs. boolean logic when using TypedArrays
floor() vs trunc() vs bitwise hacks (~~, >> 0, etc) 2
Math.round vs Bitwise
triple equal vs bitwise xor
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs bitwise, also trunc, floor
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?