Benchmark: IndexOf vs includes js (idanlevi1)

Script Preparation code:

var arr = Array(1000000).fill(null).map((_, i) => 'a' + i)

Tests:

indexOf
arr.indexOf('a966542') != -1
includes
arr.includes('a966542')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf
includes

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. Both methods are used to search for a specific value (`'a966542'`) within an array. The array is populated with 1,000,000 elements, all initialized to the string `'a' + i`, where `i` ranges from 0 to 999,999.

**Methods Compared**

1. **`indexOf`**: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value within the array. If the value is not found, it returns -1.
2. **`includes`**: This method returns a boolean indicating whether the array contains the specified value.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two options:

* `indexOf`: A simple and straightforward approach that involves searching for the exact value in the array.
* `includes`: A more efficient approach that uses a linear scan of the array to check if any element matches the specified value.

**Pros and Cons**

### `indexOf`

Pros:

* Easy to implement
* Fast for small arrays or specific values

Cons:

* Slow for large arrays or unknown values (O(n) complexity)
* May be less efficient than `includes` due to its linear scan approach

### `includes`

Pros:

* Efficient for large arrays and unknown values (O(n) complexity)
* More concise and readable code

Cons:

* May not perform as well as `indexOf` for exact value searches
* Requires JavaScript version 13 or later, which introduces the `includes` method

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that both `indexOf` and `includes` methods are built-in to JavaScript and do not rely on external libraries.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses JavaScript version 13 or later, which introduces the `includes` method. If you're using an earlier version of JavaScript, you may need to use a polyfill or fallback implementation for `includes`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Binary Search**: For large arrays, binary search can be an efficient approach (O(log n) complexity). However, it requires a sorted array and may not be suitable for all use cases.
* **Regular Expressions**: You could use regular expressions to search for the value in the array. This approach is often faster than `indexOf` but may introduce additional overhead due to regex parsing.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a clear comparison between two methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can choose the best method for your specific use case and optimize your JavaScript code accordingly.

Related benchmarks:

IndexOf vs includes js (idanlevi1) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs includes

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf

includes

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):