Benchmark: includes vs compares

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [ 1, 2, 3 ];

Tests:

compare
arr.map(a => ( a === 0 && a === 2 ));
includes
arr.map(a => [0, 2].includes(a));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
compare
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 break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is comparing two ways to check if an element exists in an array: using `includes()` versus manual comparison.

**Script Preparation Code**
```javascript
var arr = [ 1, 2, 3 ];
```
This sets up a simple JavaScript array with three elements.

**Html Preparation Code**
There is no HTML code provided for preparation.

**Individual Test Cases**

### Test Case 1: "compare"
```javascript
arr.map(a => (a === 0 && a === 2));
```
This test case uses the `map()` function to apply an anonymous function to each element in the array. The function checks if the current element `a` is both equal to 0 and equal to 2 using the `&&` operator. Since this is not a valid JavaScript expression, we can assume that the intention was to use the `includes()` method or manual comparison.

**Pros:** This approach demonstrates a simple example of how to use `map()` with an anonymous function.
**Cons:** The syntax is incorrect, and it's likely that the author intended to use `includes()` or manual comparison instead.

### Test Case 2: "includes"
```javascript
arr.map(a => [0, 2].includes(a));
```
This test case uses the `map()` function to apply an anonymous function to each element in the array. The function checks if the current element `a` is included in the array `[0, 2]` using the `includes()` method.

**Pros:** This approach demonstrates a valid way to use `includes()` with an array.
**Cons:** Since this test case only passes one element through the `map()` function (the first element of the array `[0, 2]`), it may not accurately represent the performance characteristics of the `includes()` method.

**Library/Libraries Used**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, since both test cases use `map()`, we can assume that the JavaScript engine being tested (e.g., V8) supports this function.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**
There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative ways to check if an element exists in an array include:

1. Using `indexOf()`: This method returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if it's not found.
```javascript
arr.indexOf(a) !== -1;
```
2. Using a simple manual comparison: This approach involves checking each element individually using the `===` operator.
```javascript
arr.some(a => a === 0 && a === 2);
```
3. Using the `includes()` method with an array of values to check against:
```javascript
arr.some(a => [0, 2].includes(a));
```
These alternatives might be more suitable for testing performance, depending on the specific use case.

**Benchmark Results**
The provided benchmark results show the raw UAStrings (e.g., browser and device information) for both test cases. The "ExecutionsPerSecond" value indicates how many times each test was executed per second. In this case, the "compare" test performed approximately 7.29 million executions per second, while the "includes" test performed approximately 5.06 million executions per second.

Keep in mind that these results are specific to the testing environment and may not be representative of real-world performance.

Related benchmarks:

includes vs compares (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: compare vs includes

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

compare

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):