Benchmark: includes vs map test 4

Tests:

includes
var CONTINENTAL_STATES_ARRAY = [ 'AK', 'AL', 'AZ', 'AR', 'CA', 'CO', 'CT', 'DE', 'DC', 'FL', 'GA', 'HI', 'ID', 'IL', 'IN', 'IA', 'KS', 'KY', 'LA', 'ME', 'MD', 'MA', 'MI', 'MN', 'MS', 'MO', 'MT', 'NE', 'NV', 'NH', 'NJ', 'NM', 'NY', 'NC', 'ND', 'OH', 'OK', 'OR', 'PA', 'RI', 'SC', 'SD', 'TN', 'TX', 'UT', 'VT', 'VA', 'WA', 'WV', 'WI', 'WY', ]; var found = false; if (CONTINENTAL_STATES_ARRAY.includes('WY')) { found = true; }
map
var CONTINENTAL_STATES_MAP = { 'AK': true, 'AL': true, 'AZ': true, 'AR': true, 'CA': true, 'CO': true, 'CT': true, 'DE': true, 'DC': true, 'FL': true, 'GA': true, 'HI': true, 'ID': true, 'IL': true, 'IN': true, 'IA': true, 'KS': true, 'KY': true, 'LA': true, 'ME': true, 'MD': true, 'MA': true, 'MI': true, 'MN': true, 'MS': true, 'MO': true, 'MT': true, 'NE': true, 'NV': true, 'NH': true, 'NJ': true, 'NM': true, 'NY': true, 'NC': true, 'ND': true, 'OH': true, 'OK': true, 'OR': true, 'PA': true, 'RI': true, 'SC': true, 'SD': true, 'TN': true, 'TX': true, 'UT': true, 'VT': true, 'VA': true, 'WA': true, 'WV': true, 'WI': true, 'WY': true, }; var found = false; if (CONTINENTAL_STATES_MAP['WY']) { found = true; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
includes
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to check if a specific string is present in an array: `includes()` and `map()`. The test case uses an array of US state abbreviations and checks if one of the states is 'WY' (Wyoming).

**Options Compared**

1. **`includes()`**: This method searches for the specified value (`'WY'`) within the array using a linear search algorithm.
2. **`map()`**: In this approach, an array is created with the same values as the original array but with each element transformed to `true`. The test then checks if `'WY'` is present in the new array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`includes()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, efficient for small arrays.
	+ Cons: Linear search can be slow for large arrays.
* **`map()`**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `includes()` for large arrays since it uses a more efficient algorithm (hashing).
	+ Cons: Creates an additional array and requires more memory.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, no specific library is required. However, the `map()` function relies on the built-in JavaScript `Array.prototype.map()` method, which is part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The `includes()` method was introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES11). The `map()` method has been a part of JavaScript since its inception and is widely supported across browsers and environments.

**Other Alternatives**

While not directly comparable to `includes()` and `map()`, other methods for checking array membership include:

1. **`Array.prototype.indexOf()`**: Similar to `includes()`, but returns the index of the first occurrence or -1 if not found.
2. **`some()`**: A more concise way to check if any element in an array satisfies a condition.
3. **`filter()`**: Creates a new array with elements that satisfy a condition.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to `includes()` and `map()`.

Related benchmarks:

includes vs map test 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: includes vs map

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

includes

map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):