Benchmark: indexOf/includes find hash in set

Script Preparation code:

function genHexString(len) {
    const hex = '0123456789ABCDEF';
    let output = '';
    for (let i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
        output += hex.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * hex.length));
    }
    return output;
}

var hashIds = [];
var randi = genHexString(32);

for(var i=0; i<500; i++) {
	hashIds.push(genHexString(32));
}

Tests:

indexOf
hashIds.indexOf(randi) > -1
includes
hashIds.includes(randi)

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 benchmark measures the performance difference between two methods: `indexOf` and `includes`. Both methods are used to search for a specific value (a 32-character hexadecimal string) within an array of random strings.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is responsible for generating the necessary data for the benchmark. It:

1. Defines a function `genHexString(len)` that generates a random hexadecimal string of a given length.
2. Creates an array `hashIds` containing 500 random hexadecimal strings generated by `genHexString(32)`.
3. Stores the randomly generated hexadecimal string in the variable `randi`.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, indicating that no additional HTML setup is required for the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definitions**

There are two test cases:

1. **indexOf**: This test case uses the `indexOf` method to search for `randi` within the `hashIds` array.
2. **includes**: This test case uses the `includes` method to search for `randi` within the `hashIds` array.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the following library is used:

* None explicitly mentioned, but we can assume that the built-in JavaScript Array prototype methods (`indexOf`, `includes`) are being tested.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's a special syntax being used here: template literals (the backticks ``) used to define the `genHexString` function and other string literals. However, this is not specific to any particular feature or syntax, but rather a modern JavaScript feature that allows for more readable and concise code.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **indexOf**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be slower than `includes` due to its less optimal algorithm.
2. **includes**:
	* Pros: More efficient and optimized for large arrays.
	* Cons: May not be as widely supported (although it's been a part of the Array prototype since ECMAScript 2015).

**Other Considerations**

When interpreting benchmark results, keep in mind that:

1. Browser and device specifics can significantly impact performance. The Chrome OS version used in this benchmark might be different from other operating systems.
2. Other factors like memory allocation, caching, and JavaScript engine optimizations can influence the actual execution time.

**Alternatives**

If you want to experiment with similar benchmarks or explore alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. Use a different programming language or library (e.g., Python, Java) for the benchmarking.
2. Modify the script preparation code to use different data structures (e.g., linked lists, trees).
3. Experiment with other search algorithms (e.g., binary search, hash-based search).

I hope this explanation helps you understand the nuances of this JavaScript microbenchmark!

Related benchmarks:

indexOf/includes find hash in set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: indexOf vs includes

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

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):