Benchmark: includes vs compare

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.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its different aspects.

**Benchmark Overview**

The given benchmark is focused on comparing two approaches: using `arr.includes()` (which checks if an element exists in an array) versus a custom implementation of includes using logical operators (`===` or `!==`). The purpose of this benchmark is to measure which approach performs better, likely in terms of speed and/or memory usage.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Using `arr.includes()`**: This method checks if an element exists in the array by iterating through its elements and verifying if it finds a match.
2. **Custom Implementation using Logical Operators (`===` or `!==`)**: This implementation manually checks for membership in the array, using logical operators to compare each element with the target value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Using `arr.includes()`**:
	* Pros: More readable, maintainable, and concise code. It's a widely supported method that works across most browsers.
	* Cons: May perform slower due to iteration overhead, as it checks every element in the array.
2. **Custom Implementation using Logical Operators (`===` or `!==`)**:
	* Pros: Can be optimized for specific use cases where the target value is known (e.g., 0 or 2), potentially leading to better performance.
	* Cons: Less readable and maintainable code, as it relies on manual iteration and logical operators. This approach may not work across all browsers.

**Library Used**

There isn't a library explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, `arr.includes()` is a built-in JavaScript method that's part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The custom implementation uses arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`\r\n ... \r\n`), which are supported by most modern browsers. The use of `\r\n` for line breaks might be specific to certain platforms, but it's unlikely to affect the benchmarking results.

**Other Considerations**

* Memory usage: The custom implementation using logical operators might have a slight advantage in terms of memory usage, as it avoids creating an iteration object or relying on JavaScript engine optimizations.
* Browser Support: Both approaches are widely supported across modern browsers. However, some older browsers might not support `arr.includes()`.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative methods for array membership checking include:

1. **`Array.prototype.findIndex()`**: Returns the index of the first element that satisfies the condition, or -1 if no match is found.
2. **`Array.prototype.indexOf()`**: Returns the index of the first occurrence of a specified value, or -1 if not found.

Keep in mind that these methods might have different performance characteristics and are more suitable for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

includes vs compare (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):