Benchmark: Foreach vs Array.includes

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];

Tests:

Array.includes
var result = array.includes('d');
For
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { if (array[i] === 'd') { var result = true; break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.includes
For

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.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents the overall benchmark, which is named "Foreach vs Array.includes". The description field is empty, and there are two script preparation codes:

* `var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];` is used for both test cases.
* No HTML preparation code is provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Array.includes**
The benchmark definition for this test case is a simple `includes()` method call on the defined array, searching for the string `'d'`.
```javascript
var result = array.includes('d');
```
2. **For**
The benchmark definition for this test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and check if the current element is equal to `'d'`. The loop breaks as soon as it finds the match.
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
    if (array[i] === 'd') {
        var result = true;
        break;
    }
}
```
**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

* The `includes()` method
* A traditional `for` loop with a conditional statement

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Array.includes()**
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable syntax
		- Built-in implementation, so no overhead for initialization
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance implications due to regular expression engine usage (if not directly implemented by the browser)
		- Might be slower than a traditional `for` loop due to method call overhead
* **Traditional For Loop**
	+ Pros:
		- Direct, low-level control over iteration
		- No method call overhead or potential performance implications from regular expression engine usage
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and maintainable syntax
		- Requires manual index management

**Library**

The `includes()` method uses the ECMAScript standard's built-in implementation of the `Array.prototype.includes()` method, which is typically implemented using a binary search algorithm. The browser implements this method efficiently.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create an alternative benchmark, you could consider:

* Using different array sizes or data distributions (e.g., random numbers instead of consecutive letters)
* Adding additional operations within the loop or `includes()` method call
* Comparing other iteration techniques, such as `forEach()`, `map()`, or `reduce()`
* Using a different browser or platform to test compatibility and performance differences

These alternatives would allow you to explore various aspects of array manipulation and iteration in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Foreach vs Array.includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.includes vs For

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.includes

For

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):