Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array.includes vs. Dictionary lookup
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Array.includes vs Dictionary lookup
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]; var b = {0: 0, 1: 1, 2: 2, 3: 3, 4: 4, 5: 5, 6: 6, 7: 7, 8: 8, 9: 9}; var randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * 10);
Tests:
Array.includes
a.includes(randomIndex);
Dictionary lookup
b[randomIndex];
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Array.includes
Dictionary lookup
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition provided represents two test cases: `Array.includes` and `Dictionary lookup`. The script preparation code creates an array `a` and a dictionary-like object `b` with the same elements. A random index is generated using `Math.random()`, which will be used to access either the `Array.includes()` method or the dictionary. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Array.includes()**: This method checks if a given value (in this case, the randomly generated index) exists in the array. 2. **Dictionary lookup**: This approach uses direct key-value lookups to access the value associated with the random index in the dictionary. **Pros and Cons** **Array.includes():** Pros: * Wide browser support: `includes()` is a standard method in modern JavaScript engines, ensuring compatibility across various browsers. * Simple implementation: The `includes()` method only requires a single element check, making it efficient in terms of computation. Cons: * Potential performance overhead due to the iteration over the array's elements. This might lead to slower execution times for large arrays. **Dictionary lookup:** Pros: * Direct access: Using direct key-value lookups can be faster than iterating over an array, as the browser doesn't need to search for the index. * Reduced memory allocation: Since we're using a dictionary-like object, there's less memory overhead compared to creating and manipulating an array. Cons: * Browser support limitations: The `Dictionary lookup` approach might not work in older browsers or those that don't support object property access with square brackets (`[]`). * Additional computation: We need to perform the key-value lookup using the random index, which could introduce additional computational overhead. **Library** In this benchmark, the `Array.prototype.includes()` method is being used. This is a standard JavaScript method implemented in modern browsers and Node.js engines, making it widely supported. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that require specific knowledge to understand. **Other Alternatives** For comparison purposes, other alternatives could include: * Using `indexOf()` instead of `includes()`: This method performs a linear search for the specified value within the array. * Utilizing `Array.prototype.indexOf()` directly: This is an alternative way to achieve direct access to an element's index in an array. * Implementing a custom binary search algorithm: For larger arrays, a more efficient data structure like a balanced binary search tree or a skip list could be used. Keep in mind that each of these alternatives may have their own set of trade-offs and performance implications.
Related benchmarks:
set.has vs. array.includes asdfasdf
set.has vs. array.includes Perf Random
set.has vs. array.includes Perf Random 1
set.has vs. array.includes (100000)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?